• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

gazzaa2

Member
Joined
2 May 2018
Messages
829
HS2 doesn’t serve New Street but a new terminus at Curzon Street which is next door more or less from Moor Street snd a short walk from New Street itself.

I know but people will still get trains into New Street in order to change at Curzon Street for HS2.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I know but people will still get trains into New Street in order to change at Curzon Street for HS2.

Still false saying those services will use a HS2 platform at New Street when they obviously won’t be.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
HS2 will relieve all the currently grossly overcrowded classic lines heading North and regional lines around Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds will benefit too. Trouble is I'm 50 so will I actually be around long enough for the benefits to be of any use to me if it's 2040 before it's completed in full ?
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
I would have far more sympathy if their energies were about mittigation of the effects of construction. There are some concerns that I"ve heard over the years - increased traffic, issues with disposal of spoil, loss of footpath or cycle routes, etc.

Sadly those complaints are drowned out by those rich landowners in the Chilterns who claim they want high speed rail, just not on this route - e.g. High Speed UK. I.e. they want it in someone else's back yard.
The 'rich landowners in the Chilterns' (mostly people whose wealth and landowning is that they own their own house in Great Missenden or Denham - which are relatively cheap parts of the area) don't give two hoots about High Speed UK or any other alternative routings other than 'no build'. They are BANANAs, not NIMBYs. They don't want it in someone else's backyard, they don't want it built at all. They definitely do not claim they want High Speed Rail - they are aggressively opposed to the concept let alone the detail. There are genuine NIMBYs with genuine complaints about the line going through their backyards, but they were drowned out by the Built Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything people who have sought to attack the line by taking outlandish back of fag pack calculations by people throwing in Crossrail 2, NPR, etc and then doubling the lot for good measure and by pushing the fake news of "get to Birmingham 15 minutes quicker".

The Chilterns Full Tunnel option, removing the damaging South Heath portal (which will then be covered over with green tunnel, but the issue is the years of construction right next to/in people's backyards) and Wendover Dean viaduct by linking two tunnels, was only published by Bucks CC/Chiltern DC just before the hybrid bill was due to pass - way too late to be considered seriously. Why did it take so long? Because they listened to the vocal Great Missenden mob who will barely be affected (there might be some more traffic on the A413 that bypasses their town*) rather than the South Heath concerned citizens up the hill who have been affected by the line's route. The Full Tunnel option was the Hail Mary play - the last ditch effort to do something for blighted residents when the councils had spent a good 5+ years failing them by focusing on getting the cancellation of the whole project.

It was HS2 themselves that rerouted and lengthened the tunnel to avoid Old Amersham** - those valid complaints about impact were addressed by the local lobbying group not by suggesting alternative routes keeping away from the town (unlike the Grand Union Canal, WCML, GCML (yes I know it goes through Amersham - but it was built it climbed a valley side to avoid it, and made the Met to Chesham go up to the top of the valley side before going back down, so that they could share a route as much as possible***) and M1 which were successfully blocked from the area by either NIMBY campaigns or by NIMBY campaigns working with people lobbying to have the route serve them) but by covering the countryside with cutout white elephants. HS2 thankfully took the initiative to address the valid NIMBY concerns in the hopes that it would stop the opposition (it did help quell the sensible Amersham Anger as legit local complaints were dealt with), having not realised that the vocal opposition was BANANAs who cared about their house prices and their failure to sell their unaffected houses for what they wanted (which would have been expensive even at the height of the boom a couple of years before - and were absurd in the depths of recession) because they wouldn't shut up with their unfounded fears about blight and how HS2 would ruin the area - not something a prospective buyer wants to hear!

The anti-HS2 big board at the A40/A412 junction in Denham has never been about the blight to the local area such as the two tunnel portals and Colne Valley Viaduct. It's always been about cost and pale pachyderms. I've never seen "save HOAC" on it or anything actually NIMBY in 10 years - the local issues don't matter (and sure, that part of Denham is some way off the route) and tweaks to route won't help - it's always, from day 1, about killing the concept itself for those people.

*A thing that HS2 themselves have worked to reduce, and that the Stop HS2 brigade have given no proposals to reduce other than "don't build it anywhere". Bucks CC/Chiltern DC have been active at mitigation reduction once they realised that they weren't going to cancel the railway but were terrible beforehand.
**And also Great Missenden, the home of the torches and pitchfork mob against HS2 - the line was originally to be down the hill next to the Missenden bypass in a deep cutting. They had a sound simulation of a train going by at the 2009 consultation event. You could barely hear it over the constant car noise. It was there, unlike what some conspiracy nut loudly slandered the staff with, but you really had to strain to actually hear it. I guess the lack of genuine impact was why they couldn't take a NIMBY line and had to turn their hate against the concept - because the impact on their town was laughable even before the reroute away that didn't sate their complaints.
***You can see it in the original station names - Amersham & Chesham Bois was built near Chesham Bois to serve Amersham, Chalfont & Latimer was on road near where a crossroad would take you to Chalfont St Giles or Latimer and Chorley Wood & Chenies was built in Chorleywood (which had by then become a small settlement and one word rather than just some trees) to serve Chenies (which remains a small settlement). It speaks of wanting to have two lines - one in each valley, but having one on top of the ridge.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
I don't see £106bn of benefits of HS2. But I do see the benefits of other infrastructure work, and I do support those. Gosh, that's confusing!



Some, no doubt. And many road schemes were just as controversial (Swampy says hi).

But a glance to the west of Euston shows the enormous scale of the HS2 CPO scheme. And, according to the FT, plenty of those owners still haven't been paid what they should have been paid- despite HS2 already blowing £7bn (the entire cost of HS1!).

It is £100b over many, many years. If the Victorians had your attitude we would have no railways now. Some of our line sare almost 200 years old, that`s fairly good value as HS2 will be proved to be looking back in the future. It is transformational and something this backward country desperately needs.
You obviously don`t agree so please suggest how to spend 100 billion on the railways
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
Let’s be clear here, there isn’t a point of £100Bn sat waiting to be used elsewhere, HS2 and other infrastructure is funded by the economic benefits the proposals create, i.e. If you don’t build the infrastructure you don’t get the benefits, thus new infrastructure needs to give the nation an economic benefit to justify being built.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,398
Let’s be clear here, there isn’t a point of £100Bn sat waiting to be used elsewhere, HS2 and other infrastructure is funded by the economic benefits the proposals create, i.e. If you don’t build the infrastructure you don’t get the benefits, thus new infrastructure needs to give the nation an economic benefit to justify being built.

Surely there has to be some money set aside. The materials to build it are not free of charge, nor is the labor required for all the planning and consultation, and to construct it.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
Surely there has to be some money set aside. The materials to build it are not free of charge, nor is the labor required for all the planning and consultation, and to construct it.

No there isn`t and that`s why the arguments about spend it on hospital or schools are bogus. It is borrowed against the economic case of the project which will give a return. if you spend the money on the NHS for example you have to keep borrowing time and time again until we choke with dept.
 
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
409
No there isn`t and that`s why the arguments about spend it on hospital or schools are bogus. It is borrowed against the economic case of the project which will give a return. if you spend the money on the NHS for example you have to keep borrowing time and time again until we choke with dept.
Absolutely correct. Alas, those who created this false equivalence years ago have the same philosophy as the likes of Dominic Cummings - 'it doesn't have to be true, it just has to strike a chord or play to people's prejudices'
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,398
No there isn`t and that`s why the arguments about spend it on hospital or schools are bogus. It is borrowed against the economic case of the project which will give a return. if you spend the money on the NHS for example you have to keep borrowing time and time again until we choke with dept.

So it is borrowed, then paid back using the economic boost to the finances. Is this analgous to taking a loan from a bank to start a business, then using the income from the business to pay the loan?
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,398
This explains it better:

https://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/advanced/what-about-the-national-debt/

When the government borrows money, it is basically a convoluted system of moving money from pension funds and insurance companies, which it intends to pay back with a modest return. This explains why there isn't a pot of money waiting to be spent, the pot of money doesn't exist, money is borrowed and has to be repaid, which will come from the economic boost provided by HS2.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
876
I think the argument that "there's no magic pot of money that can be redirected to other things" misses the point a bit.

The argument is that the HS2 money would be better spent on classic network enhancements, for example. Doesn't really matter how that money is created or where it exists. It's all very well saying it's earmarked for HS2, but the question then becomes "why is it earmarked for HS2"? If the idea is that HS2 will repay the debt by boosting the economy - well, won't the other schemes do that as well? HS2 doesn't have an amazing BCR (even if you consider BCRs to underestimate it's benefits) so it's not as if you can say it's outstanding in terms of return on investment.

The question is still "what makes HS2 special enough to use this magic form of creating spending money".
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,275
I think the argument that "there's no magic pot of money that can be redirected to other things" misses the point a bit.

The argument is that the HS2 money would be better spent on classic network enhancements, for example. Doesn't really matter how that money is created or where it exists. It's all very well saying it's earmarked for HS2, but the question then becomes "why is it earmarked for HS2"? If the idea is that HS2 will repay the debt by boosting the economy - well, won't the other schemes do that as well? HS2 doesn't have an amazing BCR (even if you consider BCRs to underestimate it's benefits) so it's not as if you can say it's outstanding in terms of return on investment.

The question is still "what makes HS2 special enough to use this magic form of creating spending money".

That would be true of we were diverting money away from investment in the existing network, however there is no evidence that this is the case. Unless someone can provide it.

Likewise it would be true if there was a scheme to provide a viable alternative to HS2, however even if there is the benefits from the extra capacity on the existing lines aren't really counted (other than the cost savings from not running the services in the existing lines). As such the BCR for a new service which backfills into the gap vacated by HS2 is likely to be very high as it's likely to be only rolling stock costs with little or no infrastructure costs. Therefore the overall benefit from building HS2 is not counted within the BCR and therefore is likely to be much higher.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
I think the argument that "there's no magic pot of money that can be redirected to other things" misses the point a bit.

The argument is that the HS2 money would be better spent on classic network enhancements, for example. Doesn't really matter how that money is created or where it exists. It's all very well saying it's earmarked for HS2, but the question then becomes "why is it earmarked for HS2"? If the idea is that HS2 will repay the debt by boosting the economy - well, won't the other schemes do that as well? HS2 doesn't have an amazing BCR (even if you consider BCRs to underestimate it's benefits) so it's not as if you can say it's outstanding in terms of return on investment.

The question is still "what makes HS2 special enough to use this magic form of creating spending money".

The point is to spend that admittedly large amount of money on the existing network will not have the same effect ie not produce such an uplift in passengers and hence in returns so spending that amount is not justified on the traditional network
It is simply that a new build such as HS2 has greater bang for its buck than the same amount spent on patching up a victorian network.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
876
That would be true of we were diverting money away from investment in the existing network, however there is no evidence that this is the case. Unless someone can provide it.

But we could use the mechanism of borrowing through government bonds to fund more spending on the classic network. We're not, only HS2 gets that privilege.

I can understand the frustration of people who see that and wonder why, after years of austerity, a massive chunk of government debt is going on a railway line.

I don't share that view by the way, I'm for HS2 and in fact for more government spending from bonds in general (including more rail enhancements).

I'm just saying that given that HS2 is the only major "headline" recipient of this type of spending, that needs to be explained and justified.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
If the idea is that HS2 will repay the debt by boosting the economy - well, won't the other schemes do that as well?
Yes they will.

The spend the £100bn on other schemes is basically the fallacy that HS2 and other schemes are mutually exclusive - as you suggest here albeit understanding the financing better and not seeing it as a pot of a specific size.

The whole point of correcting the idea that the money doesn't exist without the scheme is to not to say that HS2 is uniquely funded (other infrastructure schemes can and are being funded in much the same way*), but that the funding is not mutually exclusive with other funding with other schemes. You're missing the point being made.

*eg Metrolink in Manchester, Crossrail, etc.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
876
Yes they will.

The spend the £100bn on other schemes is basically the fallacy that HS2 and other schemes are mutually exclusive - as you suggest here albeit understanding the financing better and not seeing it as a pot of a specific size.

The whole point of correcting the idea that the money doesn't exist without the scheme is to not to say that HS2 is uniquely funded (other infrastructure schemes can and are being funded in much the same way*), but that the funding is not mutually exclusive with other funding with other schemes. You're missing the point being made.

*eg Metrolink in Manchester, Crossrail, etc.

But my argument (playing devil's advocate) is not "let's divert the spending on HS2 elsewhere", it's "if HS2 can have it, why can't <insert project here>?". I think a lot of opposition of HS2 would drop away if there was seen to be a proportionate uplift in spending on the existing network along with it. A lot of people's frustration with HS2 comes not from a problem with the scheme itself, but that so much else has been cut back on and yet this keeps going.

Where is the debt-driven spending for electrification of the MML, and to Bristol, and to Hull?
Where is the debt-driven spending for Piccadilly P15/16?
Where is the debt-driven spending for electrifying EWR?

People who have advocated for years to get this kind of enhancement done are annoyed that HS2 has, from their perspective, got an easy ride on a thin business case.

Again, I'm not against HS2, but I'm trying to empathise with people who are.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
"The national debt" is often seen as a bad thing - at the same time as the fact that people like investing in it because it's a relatively safe investment.

Debt is fine as long as it's planned and managed. Like you would with a Mortgage. No-one says having a Mortgage is a bad thing, even though (in theory) you are at financial risk during the years of its repayment
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
But we could use the mechanism of borrowing through government bonds to fund more spending on the classic network. We're not, only HS2 gets that privilege
That is false - debt is used for classic network infrastructure improvements, not renewals - they are totally different things.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,499
Location
Mold, Clwyd
George Osborne planned to sell HS2 to the Chinese (in return for being contractors on the project), but we don't hear any of that these days.
There's still the option of selling the capacity on the line to an agency, as happens with HS1 (to Canadian pension funds).
It all depends what sort of financial model is decided for HS2, and the wider railway, including Network Rail's debt.
Maybe some of this will become apparent at budget time (as it's Sajid Javid's problem to find the funding).
It may also figure in the mega trade deals we intend to do around the world.

This is another reason why you can't equate transport infrastructure investment with things like school and hospitals.
Transport still has a commercial attraction, public services don't.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,284
Location
Isle of Man
If the Victorians had your attitude we would have no railways now.

The UK is littered with the remnants of pointless railways that were built because of a Victorian desire to have a new train set whatever the cost.

The spend the £100bn on other schemes is basically the fallacy that HS2 and other schemes are mutually exclusive

It isn't fallacious. Just as Crossrail has squeezed TfL's budget, HS2 will squeeze the railways' budget. Whilst in theory you are correct that the Government could just issue another £110bn in bonds, we all know it isn't that simple. Issue too many bonds and you just get inflation.

We already see that. The MML and GWML electrification schemes are "too expensive"- leaving those regions lumbered with high-polluting diesel trains for at least another generation- but HS2 has been given a blank cheque to do what it wants.

I can't see 37 houses bulldozed in Burton Green

The article I linked to said there were 37 houses subject to a HS2 CPO. Now maybe HS2 are intending to go all Kirsty Allsopp on us and do them up for rental, but I somehow doubt it.

No they weren't. Thousands of miles of roads and motorways have been built since the 1960s, and most of them recently have been non-motorways of near motorway standard.

I notice you snipped the comment about Swampy off. You know, that (in)famous road protester.

I must have imagined the prolonged protests against road building at, among other places, Newbury and Twyford Down.

There's still the option of selling the capacity on the line to an agency, as happens with HS1 (to Canadian pension funds).

The Canadian pension fund bought their 30-year lease on HS1 for about a quarter of what HS1 cost to build. Conveniently the lease runs out just as HS1 will need its first mid-life refurbishment.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,275
But my argument (playing devil's advocate) is not "let's divert the spending on HS2 elsewhere", it's "if HS2 can have it, why can't <insert project here>?". I think a lot of opposition of HS2 would drop away if there was seen to be a proportionate uplift in spending on the existing network along with it. A lot of people's frustration with HS2 comes not from a problem with the scheme itself, but that so much else has been cut back on and yet this keeps going.

Where is the debt-driven spending for electrification of the MML, and to Bristol, and to Hull?
Where is the debt-driven spending for Piccadilly P15/16?
Where is the debt-driven spending for electrifying EWR?

People who have advocated for years to get this kind of enhancement done are annoyed that HS2 has, from their perspective, got an easy ride on a thin business case.

Again, I'm not against HS2, but I'm trying to empathise with people who are.

However the evidence is that the spending on enhancements has generally gone up year in year for the last decade starting at about £2bn a year and rising to about £4bn.
Screenshot_20200113-033521.png

This equates to about £30bn over the decade.

Over CP6 the level of spending is to be £48bn, based on a 50:50 split between enhancements and maintenance that's an average of £5bn a year on enhancements.

That shows that spending on the existing network is likely to continue to be high, however it should be noted that is before any extra projects which may get pushed forwards as part of "repayment for loaned votes".
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
I'm just saying that given that HS2 is the only major "headline" recipient of this type of spending, that needs to be explained and justified.

To clarify, practically all spending on government funded infrastructure is paid for in this way, not just HS2 - There are clearly schemes that give a better BCR, but across that level of money, I’d wager that you couldn’t get an average return that beats HS2
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,284
Location
Isle of Man
However the evidence is that the spending on enhancements has generally gone up year in year for the last decade

Most of that increase is because of Crossrail though, isn't it? Take the £1bn-£2bn for Crossrail out and it's much less clear cut.

Renewals expenditure has definitely stayed constant.

I don't think the money is going to dry up, but HS2 is going to have an impact on expenditure elsewhere.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,275
Most of that increase is because of Crossrail though, isn't it? Take the £1bn-£2bn for Crossrail out and it's much less clear cut.

Renewals expenditure has definitely stayed constant.

I don't think the money is going to dry up, but HS2 is going to have an impact on expenditure elsewhere.

That spending is Network Rail spending, so doesn't include the majority of the costs of Crossrail (although there are some costs, so not entirely unreasonable to highlight, but a total of £2.8bn out of a value of £30bn)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top