Despite the government's announcement, should HS2 be cancelled?

[tomuk]

As regrds safeguarding

Rail Minister in June 22

I am maintaining safeguarding along the Golborne Link while alternatives are considered. This means we plan to keep existing compensation programmes in place for affected homeowners so that they can still access support as needed. The government periodically reviews land requirements needed for the project and updates the extent of safeguarding accordingly.

and Phase 2b East

“Since the prime minister announced the Integrated Rail Plan in February 2020, development of the eastern leg of HS2 has been paused to avoid nugatory spend while the Integrated Rail Plan took this work forward.
Safeguarding of the eastern leg route remains in place pending conclusion of work on the most effective way to serve Leeds and towns and cities along the eastern leg. Any property that has been acquired already by the government but is not required for the eventual route will be resold.”

 

[Xavi]

My understanding is there will be no changes to phase 2a and there’s no point in announcing anything about 2b given the stage of development. Can never rule anything out though.

 

[Tezza1978]

My understanding is there will be no changes to phase 2a and there’s no point in announcing anything about 2b given the stage of development. Can never rule anything out though.

This is the most likely outcome. Keep phase 1 and 2a exactly on track and just say 2B is on track but subject to "close review" to keep costs down.
It will all get built as the benefits are obvious and most Tories support it, but some slightly weasel words on it reduce the noise from NIMBY chumps like Esther McVey (amazed that she was ever a cabinet minister given that she was known for fairly unhinged cabinet outbursts and was the most pro "burn the house down - I don't care" advocate of a "no deal, walk away" Brexit solution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is the most likely outcome. Keep phase 1 and 2a exactly on track and just say 2B is on track but subject to "close review" to keep costs down.
It will all get built as the benefits are obvious and most Tories support it, but some slightly weasel words on it reduce the noise from NIMBY chumps like Esther McVey (amazed that she was ever a cabinet minister given that she was known for fairly unhinged cabinet outbursts and was the most pro "burn the house down - I don't care" advocate of a "no deal, walk away" Brexit solution.

Given that the "black hole" appears to be in effect excess borrowing over the period up to 2028 (yes, really) they could announce anything they liked as long as it is plausible and placates the markets. The Labour Government we are near-certain to get at the next election will change it all anyway. So while some of the tax rises may be immediate, I don't think we need to be overly concerned that many, or indeed any at all, of the cuts will actually take place as such, bar the "no budget increases next year" part.

In other words, whatever it is it'll all be bluster. Even if they announced a full Serpell, in practice it couldn't be implemented before the next general election.

 

[Bald Rick]

Even if they announced a full Serpell, in practice it couldn't be implemented before the next general election.

Oh it could, easily. But that won’t happen.

 

[AlbertBeale]

You were using out of date figures, and doing so in a deliberately misleading manner. This is also precisely the way which the IEA, other right-wing think tanks, and Andrew Gilligan have tried to get HS2 cancelled, so please forgive my skepticism as to your protests against any association with discredited extreme right-wing causes.

The figures are the latest ones published by HS2 that I have; I'm not being deliberately misleading (or even, as fas as I know, misleading at all). Of course they might have adjusted the figures since; but the essence of the issue, that for at least some decades the carbon impact of HS2 will be on the wrong side of the line, still stands. And the desperate need is for carbon emissions to go the other way now. Emitting lots of carbon for a project that might start to save carbon in a few decades (even if it's not, as their figures I have suggest, many many decades) is simply too late and too dangerous in the current climate (sic).

If you really think I have any link to extreme right-wing causes, discredited or otherwise, I suggest you check my Special Branch files which would very much disabuse you.... I think you owe me an apology.

 

[tomuk]

And the desperate need is for carbon emissions to go the other way now. Emitting lots of carbon for a project that might start to save carbon in a few decades (even if it's not, as their figures I have suggest, many many decades) is simply too late and too dangerous in the current climate (sic).

The problem is despite you saying otherwise 6 million tonnes isn't lots of carbon it is again just over 1% of 2019 UK annual emissions. It won't all be emitted in one go and improvements in other emissions during the next five years will easily out way the emissions. Lots of CO2 is the 11.5 Billion tonnes China emits or the 5 to 6 billion tonnes the USA emits a year.

 

[HSTEd]

The figures are the latest ones published by HS2 that I have; I'm not being deliberately misleading (or even, as fas as I know, misleading at all). Of course they might have adjusted the figures since; but the essence of the issue, that for at least some decades the carbon impact of HS2 will be on the wrong side of the line, still stands. And the desperate need is for carbon emissions to go the other way now. Emitting lots of carbon for a project that might start to save carbon in a few decades (even if it's not, as their figures I have suggest, many many decades) is simply too late and too dangerous in the current climate (sic).

If you really think I have any link to extreme right-wing causes, discredited or otherwise, I suggest you check my Special Branch files which would very much disabuse you.... I think you owe me an apology.

Documents published a few years ago will be problematic in the extreme given the pace of recent electricity decarbonisation is far greater than had traditionally been expected.

I would have to dig the stats myself to be sure

And even if your figures are correct, 3 million tonnes is utterly inconsequential. UK emissions in 2019 were 450 million tonnes per year.

And if HS2 was operated for maximum carbon reduction as it's primary operational criteria I'd wager we could do rather better than HS2s economics focussed strategy

EDIT: having trouble posting a link to the document but I found one from 2013 suggesting between a 1.8MT net saving and a 3MT net increase in emissions over 60 years with the position improving with time.

The operating strategy for the railway is likely to be critical

 

[daodao]

It'll likely be cut down further though. Phase 1 is too far ahead, and Phase 2a just got passed, but Phase 2b is free real estate to try and appease those against HS2.

I agree with the Rt. Hon. member for Tatton regarding the future for phase 2b of HS2.

 

[JonathanH]

I agree with the Rt. Hon. member for Tatton regarding the future for phase 2b of HS2.

How do you propose to deal with the issues of fitting in stopping and fast services on the Crewe to Manchester route if it has to carry more of the fast services on the London to Manchester route?

 

[Starmill]

If you really think I have any link to extreme right-wing causes, discredited or otherwise, I suggest you check my Special Branch files which would very much disabuse you.... I think you owe me an apology.

And what might I find there exactly? A long standing association with the Green Party in England and Wales, say?

 

[ChrisC]

The goal of HS2 was to stimulate the economies of the North and Midlands but the costs have risen to such a degree that it's far from certain whether HS2 will ever get north of Birmingham and whether those benefits will ever get delivered.

As the project has progressed and those original goals and justifications have faded away, at some point there has to be a re-appraisal of what HS2's purpose now is and what benefits it can deliver within a reasonable budget and time span.

Quite, but anyone driving round those areas in rush hour is normally stuck in awful traffic jams. Which begs the question, if you really want to boost the local economy do you put all your eggs into the HS2 basket, or would you maybe trim it back to ensure there's still some funds available for improving the local transport infrastructure of the Midlands. Parked up in stationary traffic looking out onto a HS2 construction site, I have wondered how much better the local economy would be if you could get around the Midlands more easily.

I’ve just been listening to a number of people on LBC on the radio calling for the complete scrapping of HS2. I have to say that generally I have always been in favour of it.

A couple of months ago I did some travelling by road between Birmingham and Coventry and further south in Warwick and must admit that I was very shocked at the scale of the widespread destruction of the countryside where HS2 construction was taking place. It was destroying a far wider area than I ever imagined it would. Even as someone in favour of HS2, I felt somewhat relieved that the section of stage 2b north of East Midlands Parkway was probably not going to happen. I live fairly close to the proposed route north of Nottingham and often go walking in the woodlands that would have been destroyed. How can the section now under construction possibly now be cancelled? The damage to the countryside has now already been done and so the railway must be completed.

 

[bingleybong]

I don't understand how Simon Jenkins actually gets paid for just endlessly recycling the same drivel. Irrespective of my wanting HS2 preferably all the way to Scotland in due time I cannot see how regurgitating the same article what must be 10+ times now constitutes doing work! It also does not allow comments so one cannot even say so.

 

[camflyer]

It'll likely be cut down further though. Phase 1 is too far ahead, and Phase 2a just got passed, but Phase 2b is free real estate to try and appease those against HS2.

Those complaining about HS2 through their rural areas would be even more unhappy if the land was used for cheap housing and commercial development.

 

[Nottingham59]

Those complaining about HS2 through their rural areas would be even more unhappy if the land was used for cheap housing and commercial development.

I'm not sure that's will be true for everyone. Have you any experiece of how much noise a 360kph high speed train makes?

 

[Grimsby town]

The figures are the latest ones published by HS2 that I have; I'm not being deliberately misleading (or even, as fas as I know, misleading at all). Of course they might have adjusted the figures since; but the essence of the issue, that for at least some decades the carbon impact of HS2 will be on the wrong side of the line, still stands. And the desperate need is for carbon emissions to go the other way now. Emitting lots of carbon for a project that might start to save carbon in a few decades (even if it's not, as their figures I have suggest, many many decades) is simply too late and too dangerous in the current climate (sic).

If you really think I have any link to extreme right-wing causes, discredited or otherwise, I suggest you check my Special Branch files which would very much disabuse you.... I think you owe me an apology.

If you aren't willing to back anything that takes decades to pay back it's upfront carbon emissions, you don't back any new large infrastructure. I really hope you are not for reopening old alignments for one train per hour in rural areas because clearly these won't pay back their upfront carbon cost quickly if ever.

Back to HS2. First off the construction and operation of HS2 emits the equivalent of 12 days of the UKs 2019 carbon emissions. Replacing 1 million of Britain's 30 million+ electric cars will emit more carbon than HS2 does in its operational lifetime. Carbon calculations only consider construction and people using HS2 and some alternative services. It doesn't consider that the alternative (an electric car/plane) is likely to require more power per passenger and therefore require more power stations. It doesn't account for the fact railways are known for encouraging denser housing in the places they exist. Those denser dwellings are more likely to not own cars and are more efficient to heat/service. It doesn't even consider the full impacts of released capacity.

HSR has been proven to be a sustainable mode of transport. Trains are more easy to recycle than cars, they're intensively used for 30 years while cars are used for 1 hour every day and lasts 15 years. None of this is included in HS2s carbon emissions. HS2 could clearly lead to less cars being built than in alternative scenario but that's incredibly difficult to model.

 

[The Planner]

I’ve just been listening to a number of people on LBC on the radio calling for the complete scrapping of HS2. I have to say that generally I have always been in favour of it.

A couple of months ago I did some travelling by road between Birmingham and Coventry and further south in Warwick and must admit that I was very shocked at the scale of the widespread destruction of the countryside where HS2 construction was taking place. It was destroying a far wider area than I ever imagined it would. Even as someone in favour of HS2, I felt somewhat relieved that the section of stage 2b north of East Midlands Parkway was probably not going to happen. I live fairly close to the proposed route north of Nottingham and often go walking in the woodlands that would have been destroyed. How can the section now under construction possibly now be cancelled? The damage to the countryside has now already been done and so the railway must be completed.

You are looking at it during construction though, once complete there will be an element of recovery. Bare earth now won't look the same once its finished.

 

[Starmill]

I'm not sure that's will be true for everyone. Have you any experiece of how much noise a 360kph high speed train makes?

Very little when running on new build infrastructure with sound-proofing.

 

[JonathanH]

Those complaining about HS2 through their rural areas would be even more unhappy if the land was used for cheap housing and commercial development.

To some extent that is part of the problem with HS2 (and road bypasses etc). Where they are built around settlements, they form a new natural barrier out to which that settlement subsequently develops. So HS2 is the thing that causes further loss of land in rural areas.

 

[AndrewE]

I'm not sure that's will be true for everyone. Have you any experiece of how much noise a 360kph high speed train makes?

Very little when running on new build infrastructure with sound-proofing.

The problem is that HS2 was over-specified.
I didn't support it originally, but now realise that it is the only effective way to put a better service back on the WCML. Unfortunately, to "sell" it they went for an unnecessarily fast line, with higher costs for alignments, cemented ballast, contractors carrying all the risk and higher speed (more energy-wasting) trains: all these bring disproportionate increases in costs - plus more noise.

The success of the railway we had shows that not much improvenment was necessary in the way of speed, just capacity.

 

[Trainbike46]

The figures are the latest ones published by HS2 that I have; I'm not being deliberately misleading (or even, as fas as I know, misleading at all). Of course they might have adjusted the figures since; but the essence of the issue, that for at least some decades the carbon impact of HS2 will be on the wrong side of the line, still stands. And the desperate need is for carbon emissions to go the other way now. Emitting lots of carbon for a project that might start to save carbon in a few decades (even if it's not, as their figures I have suggest, many many decades) is simply too late and too dangerous in the current climate (sic).

Some people in the green party of England and Wales have actually written a piece on why HS2 is a good idea from a carbon emissions perspective, and compare it to other projects.

The carbon numbers: what is the full potential of HS2? - Greens4HS2

All transportation infrastructure projects emit CO2 when being built, but only trains earn that CO2 back, because when people switch from high-CO2 modes like cars and planes, the only question is “how long” until it’s all earned back and we start getting gains. Carbon Brief wrote a brilliant...

hs2.green

Suffice it to say, HS2 will reduce emissions, there is uncertainty over how much (as there is around all projections into the future), and from a climate perspective ideally we should be speeding up the construction

 

[stuu]

Very little when running on new build infrastructure with sound-proofing.

I'm entirely in favour of HS2 but high speed trains are extremely loud, even if only briefly. Sound proofing can only do so much

 

[Bald Rick]

I’ve just been listening to a number of people on LBC on the radio calling for the complete scrapping of HS2. I have to say that generally I have always been in favour of it.

A couple of months ago I did some travelling by road between Birmingham and Coventry and further south in Warwick and must admit that I was very shocked at the scale of the widespread destruction of the countryside where HS2 construction was taking place. It was destroying a far wider area than I ever imagined it would. Even as someone in favour of HS2, I felt somewhat relieved that the section of stage 2b north of East Midlands Parkway was probably not going to happen. I live fairly close to the proposed route north of Nottingham and often go walking in the woodlands that would have been destroyed. How can the section now under construction possibly now be cancelled? The damage to the countryside has now already been done and so the railway must be completed.

It was exactly the same for HS1. Look At that now for how it will be she done.

 

[A0]

Those complaining about HS2 through their rural areas would be even more unhappy if the land was used for cheap housing and commercial development.

The problem is they are getting that as well as HS2 - that's the point. HS 2 will free up capacity on the WCML and Chiltern line - and the amount of housing development along both of those is huge.

So really they (to an extent me, because I live in Northants) are getting the worst of all worlds. We get HS2 ripping up a chunk of the countryside to create capacity for rail between the North / Midlands to London so that free'd up capacity can be used for services from the likes Northants, Bucks etc to be increased because of increased amounts of housing. The one thing we don't seem to be getting are improved road links or capacity in things like hospitals.

 

[camflyer]

I'm not sure that's will be true for everyone. Have you any experiece of how much noise a 360kph high speed train makes?

Isn't that why a billions is being spent on noise reduction measures?

I've lived alongside a mainline railway before and it was much better than being next to a motorway or airport.

 

[Snow1964]

Chancellor confirming HS2 to Manchester, Northern Powerhouse rail, East West rail and Sizewell C nuclear power all going ahead and part of £600 billion infrastructure plan

(live on TV so no link)

 

[camflyer]

Chancellor confirming HS2 to Manchester, Northern Powerhouse rail, and Sizewell C nuclear power

(live on TV so no link)

Esther McVey will be delighted....

 

[achmelvic]

So that's no further cuts to HS2, sounds like what's in the IRP will proceed

Also commitment to East-West rail though whether that's to Cambridge not clear

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Esther McVey will be delighted....

She will have another go when the Finance Bill goes through the Commons.
But the government is clearly not ging to curtail its major infrastructure projects.

 

[mike57]

Chancellor confirming HS2 to Manchester, Northern Powerhouse rail, East West rail and Sizewell C nuclear power all going ahead and part of £600 billion infrastructure plan

(live on TV so no link)

OK I'll eat my words. Glad to hear that but Chancellor must of had to face down those in his own party, or maybe he has that dubious pleasure to come