Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[jayah]

No one who claims that HS2 would be an environmental disaster have said anything about the impact of maintaining the truck road network.

If HS2 is environmentally too costly then why is nothing being said about reducing the emissions from the maintenance of the road network, with consideration being given to closing some roads?

We are already maintaining the trunk road network. Save at the margins and some fairly anaemic expansion, the emissions aren't getting worse.

HS2 on the other hand generates something like 30% completely new trips. It is back to the old days of predict and provide. Had we carried on with that for trunk roads our cities would be ringed with flyovers and there would be at least two proper motorways to Scotland not to mention the M303.

 

[jayah]

Post 3272 : - "The whole HS2 business case is based on increasing travel. That isn’t good for the environment". "4 million will switch from cars."

But how do you get car drivers our of cars with a walk on fares being so high?

I would hope that all the trains are fixed formation of a least 12 cars with no cabs interrupting pass looking for seats, or the trolley selling wares and decent seats. If HS2 generates the traffic predicted to have 2 x 5 cars joined together would be not to the passengers advantage especially when the operator would run a five when he could get away with it leading to mass overcrowding.

Also do we have "an intelligent informed customer" who can see through the paperwork and report to the Government on what is really happening with the project. (costs and timescales) We cannot afford another Crossrail debacle. Dft should pay for an engineering firm to be imbedded with the contractors seeking the truth and not rely on HS2 saying all is wonderful.

The problem is actually local transport. New hospitals, schools, shopping centres are all being built out of town. Many railways race through dense suburbs without a thought of stopping. Access involves Parkways or long congested drives followed by expensive parking. Trains are small and often crowded. Once people are ingrained in the habit of driving it is very hard to get them to change.

And the fares are far too high against the marginal costs of driving.

The Swiss have interesting solutions. Full fares are high but using the same cost model as car ownership they have high cost railcars that offer deep discounts on marginal travel. Suburbs are built around railways and suburban stations are built so most of the population have very easy access to the network.

The per capita use speaks for itself.

 

[jayah]

Indeed. How many people are campaigning against plans to spend £450m on a few miles of dual carriageway through the Cotswolds AONB with a BCR of 1.04? Pretty much nobody as far as I can tell. At least one local MP is trying to take the credit for this road and the 'net zero emissions' policy. Amazing stuff.

Most trunk roads schemes that get delivered have a BCR in excess of 2.5.

 

[jayah]

This is all rather simplistic.

Railway maintenance also results in a lot of carbon emissions. I would guess that a kilometre of twin track railway generates much more carbon through maintenance than a 6 lane motorway. You don’t need to tamp a motorway, for example.

Your EV figure of 75g/km is a figure over the life of the ‘asset’, assuming a certain carbon mix of electricity generation. It would be interesting to see the carbon footprint of a new 4 car EMU on the same basis.

The vast majority of the 75g comes from the carbon produced in construction. Don't replace a petrol car with an EV to save the planet. Better to sweat assets, travel less or don't get a car at all. Lots of people now own a Chelsea Tractor for family trips and a runabout for local trips.

 

[EM2]

West Malling. A few miles away in Kings Hill is an old airfield. As it is 'brownfield' it has been developed from a green field by suburban housing into a small town in its own right. But too far from either station in Malling to reach other than by car or bike.

It's ten minutes on a bus from Melrose Avenue to West Malling station. The bus route is even called King's Hill Connect.

 

[jayah]

It's ten minutes on a bus from Melrose Avenue to West Malling station. The bus route is even called King's Hill Connect.

As long as you don't want to travel after 8pm or on a Sunday. A few people might actually use the bus for commuting but the vast majority living there will own a car and consider it to be absolutely indispensable.

 

[EM2]

As long as you don't want to travel after 8pm or on a Sunday.

At those times, you could get a taxi. And that still doesn't make it 'too far' to get to the station unless by car, especially as it's only about twenty minutes by bike.

 

[jayah]

At those times, you could get a taxi. And that still doesn't make it 'too far' to get to the station unless by car, especially as it's only about twenty minutes by bike.

A taxi after 8pm.
A taxi on Sunday.
A twenty minute cycle in winter with cold, rain and ice.

Daft place to choose to develop, purely because it was an airfield. Classic disintegrated transport, just like HS2 and this Toton hub.

West Malling car park (one car park and three extensions) is full again and more housing development, more road improvements and another car park extension are now in the works.

Before long most of the land around the station, where they should have put the town, will be consumed by parking for all the cars needed because they didn't.

 

[EM2]

.
Before long most of the land around the station, where they should have put the town, will be consumed by parking for all the cars needed because they didn't.

You're still missing the point. How many of the people in those cars could get the bus, or cycle, but don't?
How many cars are in those car parks after 8pm or on Sundays?

 

[Lucan]

Closing roads probably would cut emissions even including from congestion if it simply forced people to stop travelling because the experience is so damn awful. It would also create terrible dislocation, pollution and congestion in local communities who find themselves being 'unbypassed'.

Bristol is proposing to sever the main (sorry - the only) north-south through route on the west side of the city for diesel cars. That is the A4 (The Portway) - Cabot Way - A370 as it passes though/over the old docks area. Togther with the ban in the central area it cuts north-west and north Bristol from south Bristol without taking massive diversions. They have now submitted the proposal to central government; it will be interesting to see what happens.
www.cleanairforbristol.org

 

[jayah]

Bristol is proposing to sever the main (sorry - the only) north-south through route on the west side of the city for diesel cars. That is the A4 (The Portway) - Cabot Way - A370 as it passes though/over the old docks area. Togther with the ban in the central area it cuts north-west and north Bristol from south Bristol without taking massive diversions. They have now submitted the proposal to central government; it will be interesting to see what happens.
www.cleanairforbristol.org

But only private diesel vehicles. Buses, taxis and Uber can do as they please.

 

[jayah]

You're still missing the point. How many of the people in those cars could get the bus, or cycle, but don't?
How many cars are in those car parks after 8pm or on Sundays?

Unless you think people or daft or must somehow be forced, then they make rational choices. Public transport isn't attractive when the railway station is 20mins by bike and 40mins on foot. They all buy cars often 2-3 per household and make the vast majority of their trips in them.

What is the answer? Better planning.

Or perhaps delete the station car park? Guess what will happen - parking in fields. Charge more for petrol, more smuggling and bootlegging.

Bad planning and disintegrated public transport.

 

[Ianno87]

Unless you think people or daft or must somehow be forced, then they make rational choices. Public transport isn't attractive when the railway station is 20mins by bike and 40mins on foot. They all buy cars often 2-3 per household and make the vast majority of their trips in them.

What is the answer? Better planning.

Or perhaps delete the station car park? Guess what will happen - parking in fields. Charge more for petrol, more smuggling and bootlegging.

Bad planning and disintegrated public transport.

I do think "last mile" provision is a genuine barrier to many choosing rail. That doesn't make things like HS2 a bad thing though.

 

[jayah]

I do think "last mile" provision is a genuine barrier to many choosing rail. That doesn't make things like HS2 a bad thing though.

HS2 connects city pairs already very well connected by fast rail links. Unfortunately last mile is more like the last 10 miles and the first 10, and is a massive barrier.

No surprise modal shift is about 5% and new trips are 25%.

 

[Meerkat]

HS2 makes a big difference.
For example if I am going north for football I can drive, or I can drag myself up to and across London to get a train, then have to sort something else out the other end.
But if that middle bit is fast enough then the time starts to look competitive and the lack of driving and parking stress, the ability to use the travelling time, and being able to drink starts to win.

 

[Ianno87]

HS2 connects city pairs already very well connected by fast rail links. Unfortunately last mile is more like the last 10 miles and the first 10, and is a massive barrier.

No surprise modal shift is about 5% and new trips are 25%.

And HS2 enables the existing railway to focus more on local links as a result.

HS2 makes a big difference.
For example if I am going north for football I can drive, or I can drag myself up to and across London to get a train, then have to sort something else out the other end.
But if that middle bit is fast enough then the time starts to look competitive and the lack of driving and parking stress, the ability to use the travelling time, and being able to drink starts to win.

Exactly. The perception of the on-rail component of the journey time improvement significantly reduces, making it more worth the "faff" of getting to the station.

An extreme example - people could drive from the UK to say Benidorm. But the journey time advantage of flying makes the faff of trekking to an airport worth it for almost everybody.

 

[jayah]

HS2 makes a big difference.
For example if I am going north for football I can drive, or I can drag myself up to and across London to get a train, then have to sort something else out the other end.
But if that middle bit is fast enough then the time starts to look competitive and the lack of driving and parking stress, the ability to use the travelling time, and being able to drink starts to win.

You could actually sort out the other bits for far less than HS2 is costing. It is clear that after HS2 all the other legs will still feel like a chore. That isn't going to attract many people out of cars which is why car to rail shift is 4%.

 

[jayah]

And HS2 enables the existing railway to focus more on local links as a result.



Exactly. The perception of the on-rail component of the journey time improvement significantly reduces, making it more worth the "faff" of getting to the station.

An extreme example - people could drive from the UK to say Benidorm. But the journey time advantage of flying makes the faff of trekking to an airport worth it for almost everybody.

Accessing the railway shouldn't be a 'faff'. You shouldn't need to build a 250mph line to try and mitigate for the fact all the other links in the chain are broken. A chain is only as good as it's weakest link and HS2 involves spending massive sums on improving the only bit it already does pretty well.

Your airport example demonstrates why when rail goes head to head against air and competes on time, it usually wins hands down.

Being an difficult to avoid faff isn't a good place for a transport provider.

 

[Clip]

Accessing the railway shouldn't be a 'faff'. You shouldn't need to build a 250mph line to try and mitigate for the fact all the other links in the chain are broken. A chain is only as good as it's weakest link and HS2 involves spending massive sums on improving the only bit it already does pretty well.

No, it really doesn't, as has been said and shown on here many many many times.

 

[Ianno87]

Accessing the railway shouldn't be a 'faff'. You shouldn't need to build a 250mph line to try and mitigate for the fact all the other links in the chain are broken. A chain is only as good as it's weakest link and HS2 involves spending massive sums on improving the only bit it already does pretty well.

Your airport example demonstrates why when rail goes head to head against air and competes on time, it usually wins hands down.

Being an difficult to avoid faff isn't a good place for a transport provider.

It's not either/or. It's HS2 *and* the last mile stuff. And fixing one doesn't mean you can't fix the other.

 

[jayah]

It's not either/or. It's HS2 *and* the last mile stuff. And fixing one doesn't mean you can't fix the other.

It is really because money is not unlimited, although you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise these past few weeks of electioneering.

I see no evidence of either planning or local transport being improved despite a reheated £500m to reverse Beeching cuts without any detail on which 5 lines they would reopen.

 

[Meerkat]

Nothing could really reduce the faff. I only have to walk 15 minutes to get a fast train to London, then in station transfers via tube.
How do you make that easier than just getting in my car?

 

[Ianno87]

It is really because money is not unlimited, although you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise these past few weeks of electioneering.

I see no evidence of either planning or local transport being improved despite a reheated £500m to reverse Beeching cuts without any detail on which 5 lines they would reopen.

**Reminder that costs of HS2 will be financed in part by loans offset against the future revenues generated. No HS2 = This money does not exist for other stuff**

Nothing could really reduce the faff. I only have to walk 15 minutes to get a fast train to London, then in station transfers via tube.
How do you make that easier than just getting in my car?

It doesn't reduce the faff. It makes the faff more worth it for the journey time advantage.

 

[EM2]

Unless you think people or daft or must somehow be forced, then they make rational choices. Public transport isn't attractive when the railway station is 20mins by bike and 40mins on foot. They all buy cars often 2-3 per household and make the vast majority of their trips in them.

But that isn't a rational choice.
Buying a car, along with all the expense involved that's required to run it, just to drive to a station that can be easily reached in ten minutes by bus is not rational.
Using a car that you *already have* is possibly more rational, if the cost of fuel and parking is less than the cost of the bus.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

But that isn't a rational choice.
Buying a car, along with all the expense involved that's required to run it, just to drive to a station that can be easily reached in ten minutes by bus is not rational.

If they did buy a car, why would they use it only to drive to the station? They'll use it for other journeys too.

 

[HSTEd]

But that isn't a rational choice.
Buying a car, along with all the expense involved that's required to run it, just to drive to a station that can be easily reached in ten minutes by bus is not rational.

Assuming the bus runs reliably, and assuming the bus fares are reasonable and the bus actually makes the journey in 10 minutes.
And assuming the bus service links with the onward train services and has sufficient margins to account for arriving back from the office on a later train than usual and so on and so on and so on.

Most bus routes in the UK fail miserably on one or more of these criteria.

 

[EM2]

If they did buy a car, why would they use it only to drive to the station? They'll use it for other journeys too.

I absolutely agree. But jayah said:

But too far from either station in Malling to reach other than by car or bike.
Cue 100% car ownership.

It clearly isn't too far to reach by other means, and '100% car ownership' being blamed on this being 'too far' would suggest that for some people, the only reason that they need a car is to get to the station.

 

[The Ham]

We are already maintaining the trunk road network. Save at the margins and some fairly anaemic expansion, the emissions aren't getting worse.

HS2 on the other hand generates something like 30% completely new trips. It is back to the old days of predict and provide. Had we carried on with that for trunk roads our cities would be ringed with flyovers and there would be at least two proper motorways to Scotland not to mention the M303.

The fact that we're already providing something shouldn't mean that we have to keep it. Using that argument would mean that we kept our coal powered power stations as we already had them.

If we reduced the amount of roads which we're maintaing, either by reducing the total miles and/or by reducing the width of them then the net result could be a reduction in emissions.

Now whist there's an increase in travel due to HS2 much of that comes from the way it is being assessed. In that any increase in population which uses HS2 counts as new trips, this is the right way to assess it. However it doesn't provide an assessment of the number of new car journeys.

However as a comparison by 2050 the strategic road network is expected to grow by between 29% and 59% so a comparable percentage of new trips as HS2 (when you compare on a similar time frame, where in 15 years time it'll be between 15% and 30%).

However given that 25% of HS2 is 25 million trips, whilst 15% to 30% of the strategic road network is an increase of about 180 to 360 million trips.

 

[The Ham]

You could actually sort out the other bits for far less than HS2 is costing. It is clear that after HS2 all the other legs will still feel like a chore. That isn't going to attract many people out of cars which is why car to rail shift is 4%.

4% is still about 4 million fewer cars. It should also be noted that there's likely to be a reduction in the number of extra cars which would otherwise be generated from population growth.

 

[jayah]

4% is still about 4 million fewer cars. It should also be noted that there's likely to be a reduction in the number of extra cars which would otherwise be generated from population growth.

Annual road vehicle miles are of the order 250bn.

You are talking about 4m road journeys perhaps 450m passenger miles, in which case 300m vehicle miles.

250bn.
0.3bn.