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

quantinghome · 16 Apr 2019

PR1Berske said:
But doesn't this point strike right at the heart of the HS2 paradox?

I'm not convinced this is a paradox.

Ultimately, HS2 is like every other transport scheme in terms of the types of benefit it gives, albeit on a larger scale than most. Some journeys see a direct benefit. Others see an indirect/tangential benefit, whether it's space freed up on a previously congested route or the scheme providing an improvement over part of the journey (although perhaps that's a direct benefit - but I'm not really worried about the semantics). Many journeys see no benefit and some journeys see a disbenefit. This applies to any transport scheme, whether it's the M1, the Channel Tunnel, a motorway junction upgrade, a village bypass, or indeed HS2.

RailUK Forums

LOL The Irony · 16 Apr 2019

PR1Berske said:
Well the M6 doesn't benefit Inverness so maybe that should be closed too?

Except it's exactly like that but instead of the A6 vs M6, it's the WCML vs HS2. The M6 has improved journey times and allowed the A6 to benefit the local communities more by removing the load of those passing through. HS2 will do exactly the same to the WCML.

6Gman · 16 Apr 2019

quantinghome said:
I'm not convinced this is a paradox.

I agree that @PR1Berske is wrong to describe this as a paradox.

Surely the reality is that attitudes to HS2 very between:

A) HS2 is the most effective scheme to meet its objectives (the view of its promoters);
B) HS2 has flaws (e.g. the lack of connectivity around Birmingham; the lack of a station in the Chilterns/Oxford city region; etc etc) but is a worthwhile scheme on balance;
C) HS2 is an abomination and a total waste of money (the PR1Berske view).

And - of course - all points between!

Bletchleyite · 16 Apr 2019

I think I'm a B, but I often do sit on the fence - I'm similar over Brexit, on which I would make the same statement about the EU as about HS2. Very strong opinions for or against something complex like HS2 or indeed Brexit (rather than, for instance, about a particular type of train seating) generally indicate a lack of understanding or research.

Geezertronic · 16 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I think I'm a B, but I often do sit on the fence - I'm similar over Brexit, on which I would make the same statement about the EU as about HS2. Very strong opinions for or against something complex like HS2 or indeed Brexit (rather than, for instance, about a particular type of train seating) generally indicate a lack of understanding or research.

I think the majority of people are B.

People are C either if they are misinformed, or take the PR1Berske view that HS2 should be cancelled no matter what because it offers no value to anyone. C people can also be misinformed that the money can be diverted to other rail-related projects (forgetting that rail investment is occurring with or without HS2), or to the NHS, both of which are nonsense

cavie78 · 16 Apr 2019

Out of interest, do many people think HS2 will actually go ahead? I really can't see it myself. If we had a strong government with a large majority then maybe, but that doesn't look likely in the near future. I fear we have another Leeds Supertram/Picc-Vic tunnel/APT/insert many more wasted opportunities here.

The Ham · 16 Apr 2019

Geezertronic said:
I think the majority of people are B.

People are C either if they are misinformed, or take the PR1Berske view that HS2 should be cancelled no matter what because it offers no value to anyone. C people can also be misinformed that the money can be diverted to other rail-related projects (forgetting that rail investment is occurring with or without HS2), or to the NHS, both of which are nonsense

There may well be those who think that I'm an A, however if be willing to drop my support for it if someone could provide an alternative which got close to providing at least half of the advantages of HS2 whilst removing some of the problems which HS2 suffers from.

jfowkes · 16 Apr 2019

cavie78 said:
Out of interest, do many people think HS2 will actually go ahead? I really can't see it myself. If we had a strong government with a large majority then maybe, but that doesn't look likely in the near future. I fear we have another Leeds Supertram/Picc-Vic tunnel/APT/insert many more wasted opportunities here.

Define "go ahead" - work has already begun at several locations (Euston and Old Oak Common to name two).

Of course it could still be cancelled/altered/scaled back, but each day the cost of that increases compared to finishing it.

The Ham · 16 Apr 2019

cavie78 said:
Out of interest, do many people think HS2 will actually go ahead? I really can't see it myself. If we had a strong government with a large majority then maybe, but that doesn't look likely in the near future. I fear we have another Leeds Supertram/Picc-Vic tunnel/APT/insert many more wasted opportunities here.

Given the support which it has from many of the political parties (the main ones opposed are the Greens and UKIP) I would like to think that it's likely that there's a enough support (currently) in parliament for it to continue.

If phase 2 gets canned, chances are there'll be a push for it to be restarted when people see the benefits which phase 1 brings.

Sceptre · 16 Apr 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
Are there any links that explain the situation regarding HS2's budget and the various competing claims about the cost?

The Strategic Case clearly states that, in 2011 terms, the estimated cost with contingencies for HS2 is £21.4bn for Phase 1, £21.2bn for Phase 2, and £7.5bn for rolling stock. At some point, I imagine the rolling stock cost got rolled into the headline figure to make it seem like HS2's budget is spiralling out of control. The current figure of £55.7bn was announced during the 2015 Spending Review, and is due to inflation.

AM9 · 16 Apr 2019

Sceptre said:
The Strategic Case clearly states that, in 2011 terms, the estimated cost with contingencies for HS2 is £21.4bn for Phase 1, £21.2bn for Phase 2, and £7.5bn for rolling stock. At some point, I imagine the rolling stock cost got rolled into the headline figure to make it seem like HS2's budget is spiralling out of control. The current figure of £55.7bn was announced during the 2015 Spending Review, and is due to inflation.

So using the BoE's inflation calculator, the (full) 2011 estimate was £50.1bn, which escalated to 2015 would be £55.078. So there was a 1.01% net increase in the whole project's budget. Not exactly the 'spiralling out of control' that the naysayers claim then! So where does all this rubbish about £100bn the objectors are making all the noise about come from?

The Ham · 16 Apr 2019

AM9 said:
So using the BoE's inflation calculator, the (full) 2011 estimate was £50.1bn, which escalated to 2015 would be £55.078. So there was a 1.01% net increase in the whole project's budget. Not exactly the 'spiralling out of control' that the naysayers claim then! So where does all this rubbish about £100bn the objectors are making all the noise about come from?

The £100bn comes from a cost estimate undertaken by Michael Byng.

Some details can be found here:

https://www.transportxtra.com/publi...-and-cost-double-the-dft-s-estimate-mps-told/

Glenn1969 · 16 Apr 2019

A cost estimate by a critic of the scheme. So can it be trusted to be impartial?

jfowkes · 16 Apr 2019

Glenn1969 said:
A cost estimate by a critic of the scheme. So can it be trusted to be impartial?

Well no, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because of that. We must be impartial about the possibility of partiality.

Frankly I'd be amazed if HS2 stayed within budget, just because few large infrastructure projects do. But I'd also be amazed if it reached numbers like £100b.

Geezertronic · 16 Apr 2019

jfowkes said:
Define "go ahead" - work has already begun at several locations (Euston and Old Oak Common to name two).

I live near the site for Interchange and can confirm that some work has started around Berkswell, Balsall Common, Hampton-In-Arden, the Interchange site itself (including some rather awful tree cutting), Coleshill, and Water Orton too.

The Ham · 16 Apr 2019

jfowkes said:
Well no, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because of that. We must be impartial about the possibility of partiality.

Frankly I'd be amazed if HS2 stayed within budget, just because few large infrastructure projects do. But I'd also be amazed if it reached numbers like £100b.

Indeed, especially given that the current budget is in 2015 prices, so in actual "cash" paid it's going to be more because of inflation for works carried out, especially towards the end of the project lifespan.

6Gman · 16 Apr 2019

Geezertronic said:
I live near the site for Interchange and can confirm that some work has started around Berkswell, Balsall Common, Hampton-In-Arden, the Interchange site itself (including some rather awful tree cutting), Coleshill, and Water Orton too.

As I've already mentioned I have received an invitation to visit a work site, and I live in the North West of England! There's definitely at least one work site in Cheshire already.

Sceptre · 16 Apr 2019

Glenn1969 said:
A cost estimate by a critic of the scheme. So can it be trusted to be impartial?

In my view, Byng does seem to be throwing extra costs on for the sake of justifying the figure. Like, costing for two Euston stations because of "operational independence" meaning they can't have a combined station, or costing the electrification on the GWML debacle.

PeterC · 16 Apr 2019

Geezertronic said:
I live near the site for Interchange and can confirm that some work has started around Berkswell, Balsall Common, Hampton-In-Arden, the Interchange site itself (including some rather awful tree cutting), Coleshill, and Water Orton too.

Not to mention a whole new interchange on the M25. I assume that the work site at Great Missenden is also HS2.

Ianno87 · 16 Apr 2019

6Gman said:
As I've already mentioned I have received an invitation to visit a work site, and I live in the North West of England! There's definitely at least one work site in Cheshire already.

Can't be for 'proper' works as only Phase 1 has powers...which doesn't touch Cheshire.

Not ecology surveys or something for the Phase 2B Environmental Statement?

MarkLong · 16 Apr 2019

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...h-hs3-rail-commuter-journeys?CMP=share_btn_tw

The Guardian started to politicize the HS2 now, not good.

AM9 · 16 Apr 2019

The Ham said:
Indeed, especially given that the current budget is in 2015 prices, so in actual "cash" paid it's going to be more because of inflation for works carried out, especially towards the end of the project lifespan.

It's normal for large and long-duration projects to be cost monitored against a base date usually near the point of project start. This relates to estimate when it is appreved. Actual costs are then recorded against work packages that have escalation applied according to their scheduled period within the program. The forecast cost at completion can then be regularly updated and compared against the estimates. That is why a delay in activities produces a larger overall cost figure, but if the cost of capital is significant, there may be benefits in moving some high cost activities to the right (i.e. later). Of course, the average member of the public doesn't appreciate that so the anti's and their media sympathisers just headline a higher figure with all the 'told you so' arrogance that they can muster up.
It's not possible to get a reliable independent escalation prediction from 2011 to 2033, but if we assume that the project started 22 years before 2018, then its 2011 cost of 50.1bn would 32.5bn in 1996. Now escalate that cost to 2018, - if it completed at £60bn, there wouldn't have been any overspend. But just look at the outrage value of a headline, "HS2 32.5bn project out of control at £60bn!!"

quantinghome · 17 Apr 2019

MarkLong said:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...h-hs3-rail-commuter-journeys?CMP=share_btn_tw
The Guardian started to politicize the HS2 now, not good.

Simon Jenkins has been trotting out these things in the Guardian for years.

6Gman · 17 Apr 2019

MarkLong said:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...h-hs3-rail-commuter-journeys?CMP=share_btn_tw

The Guardian started to politicize the HS2 now, not good.

Hasn't Jenkins always been anti-HS2 ?

The Ham · 17 Apr 2019

6Gman said:
Hasn't Jenkins always been anti-HS2 ?

He had a number of articles on the subject, this one from 2012:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/10/high-speed-rail-waste-money-hs2

High-speed rail: the greatest waste of public money after aircraft carriers

WatcherZero · 19 Apr 2019

I see the Midlands Economic Forum have created a new fictional cost of the project of £156bn by throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it, for example they are including the cost of electricity to run it during its lifetime as a construction cost!

The Ham · 19 Apr 2019

WatcherZero said:
I see the Midlands Economic Forum have created a new fictional cost of the project of £156bn by throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it, for example they are including the cost of electricity to run it during its lifetime as a construction cost!

That means that excluding staff costs, the average ticket cost for the current London to the regions which will benefit from it would be about £100 return. Meaning that all other travel on other journeys being made on HS2 and ask the other transport schemes would be free...

6Gman · 19 Apr 2019

WatcherZero said:
I see the Midlands Economic Forum have created a new fictional cost of the project of £156bn by throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it, for example they are including the cost of electricity to run it during its lifetime as a construction cost!

Perhaps they should also add the cost of all the fares to be paid over the lifetime of the railway ...

civ-eng-jim · 19 Apr 2019

Here's the Midlands Economic Forum's report:

Unsurprisingly it doesn't reference any of the sources for the information in the report.....

AM9 · 19 Apr 2019

WatcherZero said:
I see the Midlands Economic Forum have created a new fictional cost of the project of £156bn by throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it, for example they are including the cost of electricity to run it during its lifetime as a construction cost!

How incompetent is that. An 'economic forum' claiming to be a champion for industry in the Midlands unable to tell the difference between capital and revenue expenditure! So they sit in their huddle slapping each other on the back until some independent authority questions their reasoning for a claim that is so far from reality.
edit: I've just seen the attachment that civ-eng-jim has kindly posted. What a load of drivel! Like all the objectors, none of their cost escalation arguments mean anything because they don't quote the fy that the escalation is based on.

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

Established Member

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Attachments

Veteran Member