With climate change now being of such alarming concern the government policy should be to take away the need to travel, especially daily commutes to work.
With climate change now being of such alarming concern the government policy should be to take away the need to travel, especially daily commutes to work
I feel sure that if tunnelling throughout would be cheaper, the team designing HS2 would have at least considered the possibility. They have already extended tunnelling on certain sections of Phase 1 over the initial proposals, with the Chiltern tunnel extended significantly, an Old Oak Common - Ruislip tunnel added, and another new one around Washwood Heath on Birmingham's Curzon Street approach.
The problem is that tunnelling throughout would not have been cheaper if the original cost estimates had been correct.
The problem is that once theyve performed all the calculations on the premise that they have, they will not want to go back adn completely rethink the scheme.
We end up with lock in.
Knowing what we know now on how much this is going to cost, tunnelling throughout looks like a reasonable option.
But when it was going to cost £40bn, it did not.
I still think a tunnel to Milton Keynes 100mph max and local stations, no branches is the way to go.
I still think a tunnel to Milton Keynes 100mph max and local stations, no branches is the way to go.
Er, why? It'd cost loads more and have less of a benefit.
Indeed, it certainly wouldn't help Manchester or Leeds, where the extra platforms for the long distance services would create extra capacity.
In the car off Manchester by removing the long distance services from London it would allow the TPE services to run to places like Crewe and other stations which will still need to have a connection to Central Manchester, but remove some paths from the congested corridor making the system work better.
It would also make travel between Crewe and Leeds or Stoke and York better, providing better East West connectivity.
Is it not often said that other cities need a Thameslink? As such it could work in a similar way to the Thameslink services between Brighton and Luton.
Yes it may well need some improvements North of Piccadilly, but it would remove the need to do so much to the South so soon. (Although it is likely that it would still be needed in time, it just makes it easier to determine which projects need to be done in what order).
Easy, just cancel season tickets. Make sure that someone traveling 5 days a week pays 5 times as much as someone traveling once a week.
That gives a financial incentive to commute less.
Er, why? It'd cost loads more and have less of a benefit.
Would repurposing Manchester Central back to rail use for long distance trains be of benefit (with travelator to man picc)
Surely the answer is No ?
1. How would you reach Central?
2. It is currently in another use.
3. Could you fit in 400m trains?
4. It's not exactly easy to fit a travellator between the two!
Boris Johnson will this week hold talks with senior ministers to decide the fate of the HS2 high speed rail line, as one cabinet minister insisted that the project remained “a key part” of the government’s plan to revive the Midlands and North of England.
Mr Johnson will hold talks with Sajid Javid, chancellor, and Grant Shapps, transport secretary, in what is widely seen as the moment when the prime minister finally decides whether to back a project whose costs could spiral to more than £100bn.
Maybe it's time to remind ourselves of the 11 pages of network upgrades that Berkeley (link up-thread somewhere) said would be needed to replace HS2... Even if half of them are needed in addition to HS2 anyway!Seems to be a theme of the HS2 antis on this thread. More expensive stuff that does barely anything (other than looking nice on a map)
How do we incentivise companies to locate their head offices in other major cities than London
Knocking 20 minutes off a Manchester-London train ain't gonna encourage companies to leave London. Anyone who says it will is a liar. Companies aren't climbing over each other to set up in Milton Keynes
We improve urban transport. We need to make our regional cities attractive in their own right. Currently they aren't, because transport into regional cities is so dire. Nobody sets up business in city centres because the transport is crap, and nobody goes to shop in city centres because the transport is crap.
Erm, yes they are. The whole reason MK has been so successful is it being "open for business" and very near London. The other new towns have been nowhere near as successful for that reason. MK has more inbound commuters than outbound ones, or did have.
I don't agree it is urban transport that is causing issues, it's mentality.
And the reason people don't shop in city centres for their weekly shop is nothing to do with buses or trains, but because people want to drive to the supermarket. Supermarkets in city centres are invariably "metro" or "local" variants for picking up stuff on the way home from work/clothes shopping.
It isn't that simple.We improve urban transport. We need to make our regional cities attractive in their own right. Currently they aren't, because transport into regional cities is so dire. Nobody sets up business in city centres because the transport is crap, and nobody goes to shop in city centres because the transport is crap.
I think the problem many people have with HS2 is what exactly is its raison d'etre?
So far, from memory the objective has been at various times
1) Ten-T - to link England, Scotland and eventually Ireland to Paris and Berlin (requiring a high speed network to avoid use of UK to EU local flights). Died when no link to HS2 and all services went to St Pancras dead end.
2) To allow direct access to Europe from Manchester and Leeds by train (trains built never used)
3) To allow direct access to Europe from Edinburgh and Glasgow via sleepers (only competitive by high speed) - never got off the ground
4) Heathrow - to avoid Heathrow expansion by use of rail connection to regional airports - that died a death when they said Heathrow expansion will go ahead
5) To relieve southern WCML thus freeing up capacity for additional freight and passenger services
6) To reduce journey times by various amounts in 10 years time (to Birmingham) and a bit to Leeds, Manchester and Scotland. More benefit in 15-20 years to Leeds and Manchester. No mention of HS2 proper to Scotland and even less said about who would pay for it as there is little benefit to England to create and HS2 to Carlisle and the Scots money comes from England anyway in the form of an (over) generous grant, but they cannot afford it. Even more so should they get Scottish independence!
7) it will help the regions and north (pretty optimistic if you ask me)
Have I perchance missed any other principal reasons that have been given to justify HS2 over time?
Seems to me a project that is looking for a compelling reason to exist other to keep the construction industry in clover. The multitude of reasons given so far lead one to suspect it is an answer looking for a question.
I think the problem many people have with HS2 is what exactly is its raison d'etre?
So far, from memory the objective has been at various times
1) Ten-T - to link England, Scotland and eventually Ireland to Paris and Berlin (requiring a high speed network to avoid use of UK to EU local flights). Died when no link to HS2 and all services went to St Pancras dead end.
2) To allow direct access to Europe from Manchester and Leeds by train (trains built never used)
3) To allow direct access to Europe from Edinburgh and Glasgow via sleepers (only competitive by high speed) - never got off the ground
4) Heathrow - to avoid Heathrow expansion by use of rail connection to regional airports - that died a death when they said Heathrow expansion will go ahead
5) To relieve southern WCML thus freeing up capacity for additional freight and passenger services
6) To reduce journey times by various amounts in 10 years time (to Birmingham) and a bit to Leeds, Manchester and Scotland. More benefit in 15-20 years to Leeds and Manchester. No mention of HS2 proper to Scotland and even less said about who would pay for it as there is little benefit to England to create and HS2 to Carlisle and the Scots money comes from England anyway in the form of an (over) generous grant, but they cannot afford it. Even more so should they get Scottish independence!
7) it will help the regions and north (pretty optimistic if you ask me)
Have I perchance missed any other principal reasons that have been given to justify HS2 over time?
Seems to me a project that is looking for a compelling reason to exist other to keep the construction industry in clover. The multitude of reasons given so far lead one to suspect it is an answer looking for a question.
The money is borrowed for HS2 and HS2 only - it is not sitting there waiting to be spent - it can't and the agreement by the treasury won't get used for anything else other than HS2 - any other projects would need separate funding released by the treasury.Imagine what that £110bn would achieve in the regions.
The money is borrowed for HS2 and HS2 only - it is not sitting there waiting to be spent - it can't and the agreement by the treasury won't get used for anything else other than HS2 - any other projects would need separate funding released by the treasury.