HS2 - good for the provinces?

[Chester1]

Ultimately the joke is on Londoners or at least those who have no realistic chance of ever buying a home and paying more than half their income in rent. Yes this could be resolved by building on most of the greenbelt to physically expand the size of London but it is never going to happen. The rather obvious solutions are to limit immigration and to move non essential public sector jobs away from London and the South East over a couple of decades. London will still grow past 10 million people but slower growth will provide more time to build sufficient houses and the infrastructure required.

HSBC moving its UK division HQ to Birmingham should be a warning sign that London is becoming too expensive. It also shows that a site near to a planned HS2 station is appealing to huge multi billion pound companies.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Ultimately the joke is on Londoners or at least those who have no realistic chance of ever buying a home and paying more than half their income in rent. Yes this could be resolved by building on most of the greenbelt to physically expand the size of London but it is never going to happen.

The greenbelt is huge - far bigger than all the land currently used for housing put together. If we let people build on land within 800m of a train station in the London green belt there would be enough land for a million homes, which should be enough for the time being! http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press...lt-must-be-built-on-to-curtail-housing-crisis

 

[Deerfold]

I've a simple solution which will help reduce the cost of living in London - stop draining so many jobs away from everywhere else and into it, so that so many people aren't forced to move there. (I note, btw, that you have no response to the question why so many people should be forced to uproot themselves and move to London.)

How are you planning on enforcing this simple solution? Will companies in London not be allowed to expand within London? Will International companies not be allowed to set up a new base in London? Will people from outside London be banned from taking up jobs in it?

 

[Deerfold]

London sucks the money from everyone, everywhere. Defending London as you do is abhorrent because it implies that you don't care about anywhere, or anyone, beyond London.

I am a proud Northerner. I hate London. I hate that it takes all the money, all the investment, all the railways, all the roads. You seem to celebrate the idea of London expanding to the seas: I spit in those seas.

We need money and investment up here. Cut London away, send it off on its own, and take the blasted HS2 with it. The North needs money. The North can do without London.

You can be a proud Northerner without hating London. Cut London off on its own and we have an impoverished country. It certainly won't result in more spending on the North.

But then I'm a Director of a company which spends in Yorkshire, employs people born in Yorkshire (at the moment) and earns around the world and benefits from fast connections to London.

I'm looking forward to HS2 reaching Leeds.

 

[B&I]

How are you planning on enforcing this simple solution? Will companies in London not be allowed to expand within London? Will International companies not be allowed to set up a new base in London? Will people from outside London be banned from taking up jobs in it?

The civil service can start the process by reversing the pattern of recent public sector job cuts in the provinces, and increases in London. That will reduce pressure on office space, infrastructure and housing in London, and given how much of our 'private sector' economy is reliant on generous public sector contracts, will encourage private businesses to leave London along with it.

As for the rest, the only direct interventions I can see are either tax differentials to force relocation, or starving London of infrastructure spending until it becomes physically impossible to get any more people to work. The high cost of commercial property, and premiums necessary to wages in order to attract staff to London, don't seem to have made any difference to many employers, except far-sighted ones like HSBC, and you.

BTW, I'm looking forward to HS2 reaching Liverpool, albeit it will only ever do so in any meaningful sense if NPR gets built. I don't think HS2 is inherently good or bad for the provinces. What matters more is the underlying political and economic context in which it is built.

 

[Chester1]

The civil service can start the process by reversing the pattern of recent public sector job cuts in the provinces, and increases in London. That will reduce pressure on office space, infrastructure and housing in London, and given how much of our 'private sector' economy is reliant on generous public sector contracts, will encourage private businesses to leave London along with it.

As for the rest, the only direct interventions I can see are either tax differentials to force relocation, or starving London of infrastructure spending until it becomes physically impossible to get any more people to work. The high cost of commercial property, and premiums necessary to wages in order to attract staff to London, don't seem to have made any difference to many employers, except far-sighted ones like HSBC, and you.

BTW, I'm looking forward to HS2 reaching Liverpool, albeit it will only ever do so in any meaningful sense if NPR gets built. I don't think HS2 is inherently good or bad for the provinces. What matters more is the underlying political and economic context in which it is built.

It is interesting that the much malaligned BBC Salford move of 3000 positions had a transfer rate of 45% meaning that it transferred aproximately 1350 people from London and 1650 jobs from London to Greater Manchester. That is actually very good when you consider that moving government offices within London often results in the loss of a quarter of staff. It makes sense to promote Salford as the UK centre of TV and media and its within the power of the government (with Parliaments support) to make it happen because it owns BBC and Channel 4. Even The Guardian is considering moving its non essential functions out of London and its HQ from Kings Cross to a cheaper part of the city (joining BT TV in Stratford has been rumoured for a while).

I hasten to add I have lived in London and like the city but it is unaffordable and its economic model is reducing the living standards of both Londoners and UK residents as a whole. HS2 makes city specialism more viable because a media company in Greater Manchester or a bank in Birmingham could have cheap costs and a local business sector community while being within easy reach of London.

The Civil Service could be moved very slowly by a London recruitment freeze (allowing staff already working in London to transfer to other London jobs but not recruiting anyone new or allowing junior staff to transfer to London). The money saved through replacing a leaver or retiree in London with someone who will not be paid the London allowance could make a substantial contribution to paying to lifting the 1% pay cap. While this policy would be difficult to implement for specialist roles it would be very doable in more general admin and customer service roles where teams already change work flows and swap work with each other occasionally. Its very plausible that 100,000+ civil service positions could be transferred out of London over a 20 year period without the need for drastic measures. While this would benefit the provinces it would also have the same effect on London housing supply vs demand as building 10s of thousands of homes.

 

[NotATrainspott]

If the problem is that there's not enough homes, then the only solution is to provide more homes. Mad ideas about forcing jobs or job creation to move to the provinces simply won't work. Any offices in London vacated by the Civil Service would just end up filled with other businesses, meaning no net reduction in demand at all.

In London the only realistic option is to densify existing areas well within the greenbelt. Just lifting greenbelt restrictions will mean we'll see even more crap suburban housing where people have to have a car to live. Sure, they might walk to the station to get into Zone 1 for work, but they'll need a car to do pretty much everything else in life. The number of people who actually commute by train or tube into Zone 1 is relatively small, even inside London itself. Far more people are employed locally in shops and businesses, and without good public transport this isn't going to be feasible without a car. While walking to a centrally-located train station might be acceptable (especially if there's a significant parking charge there) other people won't be as able to walk to their places of employment.

Densification doesn't mean building skyscrapers, or even Grenfell-style tower blocks. It means replacing low-rise suburban homes with medium-rise tenement blocks, like those found in the inner suburbs of New York. These can be highly desirable, cheap to build and cheap to maintain all at the same time. There are significant swathes of suburban London where suburban homes had been built for families years ago but now they're used as house shares, or are subdivided into too many 'studio' flats. If homes are no longer suitable for what they're needed for, and they're of no particular architectural merit, then there's no good reason not to tear them down and replace them. It doesn't even need to be total replacement - you could just replace the buildings fronting onto major streets and release the pressure on the rest of the area. With that higher density on major thoroughfares you get improved services, so the people left in the remaining suburban homes would gain something too.

 

[B&I]

If the problem is that there's not enough homes, then the only solution is to provide more homes. Mad ideas about forcing jobs or job creation to move to the provinces simply won't work. Any offices in London vacated by the Civil Service would just end up filled with other businesses, meaning no net reduction in demand at all.

In London the only realistic option is to densify existing areas well within the greenbelt. Just lifting greenbelt restrictions will mean we'll see even more crap suburban housing where people have to have a car to live. Sure, they might walk to the station to get into Zone 1 for work, but they'll need a car to do pretty much everything else in life. The number of people who actually commute by train or tube into Zone 1 is relatively small, even inside London itself. Far more people are employed locally in shops and businesses, and without good public transport this isn't going to be feasible without a car. While walking to a centrally-located train station might be acceptable (especially if there's a significant parking charge there) other people won't be as able to walk to their places of employment.

Densification doesn't mean building skyscrapers, or even Grenfell-style tower blocks. It means replacing low-rise suburban homes with medium-rise tenement blocks, like those found in the inner suburbs of New York. These can be highly desirable, cheap to build and cheap to maintain all at the same time. There are significant swathes of suburban London where suburban homes had been built for families years ago but now they're used as house shares, or are subdivided into too many 'studio' flats. If homes are no longer suitable for what they're needed for, and they're of no particular architectural merit, then there's no good reason not to tear them down and replace them. It doesn't even need to be total replacement - you could just replace the buildings fronting onto major streets and release the pressure on the rest of the area. With that higher density on major thoroughfares you get improved services, so the people left in the remaining suburban homes would gain something too.

'In order to save the city, it was necessary to destroy it'. So you would rather see London flattened and re-built than contemplate any steps to encourage economic activity to relocate anywhere else?

 

[Chester1]

Moving public sector jobs out of London is not a mad idea and has happened under multiple governments although on a woefully inadequate scale. I am suggesting a huge increase in scale of moves. For instance the government is attempting to force Channel 4 to leave London. Why not make the BBC drastically reduce its presence in London too? As other posters have mentioned it is not simply the jobs but related companies that move. Yes other companies would lease the offices and people live in homes vacated but less demand means lower property prices and lower rents which would help make London more affordable.

The Greenbelt has survived for 70 years due to strong political support. No Tory government could rip it up and any Labour government would find it extremely difficult. HS2 has been forced through parliament despite enormous objections. It is one railway line, now imagine the reaction to attempts to expand London by a million or two homes!

 

[HSTEd]

The important thing to remember when I propose that London will grow is not that the outer provinces will become or remain dormitories - there might be a degree of that in the short to medium term, but eventually businesses move the other way as it becomes a fully integrated part of the whole.

 

[B&I]

The important thing to remember when I propose that London will grow is not that the outer provinces will become or remain dormitories - there might be a degree of that in the short to medium term, but eventually businesses move the other way as it becomes a fully integrated part of the whole.

What's stopping them moving now?

 

[HSTEd]

What's stopping them moving now?

Because these places are in the middle of nowhere?

Stratford or even Watford is far more attractive than Crewe for business as it stands.

 

[fowler9]

Because these places are in the middle of nowhere?

Stratford or even Watford is far more attractive than Crewe for business as it stands.

Why more than Crewe do you reckon? Excellent transport links including a very well served airport down the road in Manchester. This mentality is bizarre. A Spanish girl I know used to work and live in Liverpool, she moved to London to be where its at, when I say London it was actually Frimley she moved to. If you ask her how often she goes out in London it is about once a year because it is further away than Manchester is from Liverpool. Still she tells people in Spain she lives in London and they are impressed.

 

[B&I]

Because these places are in the middle of nowhere?

Stratford or even Watford is far more attractive than Crewe for business as it stands.

How and why?

 

[edwin_m]

Because from Crewe visiting your client or co-worker in London is four hours travelling and will probably be in peak period one way or the other so will cost over £200. From Stratford or Watford it's less than half the travel time and costs about a fiver.

 

[B&I]

But what if your client or co-worker is in Crewe? Why is the distance from the provinces to London always shorter than the distance from London to the provinces?

 

[The Ham]

As a southerner who lives within an hour commute from London I shall explain why towns and cities that will be within an hour of London will benefit.

As I have said I live within an hour of London (and always have done) yet most people where live do not work in London, based on train passenger numbers at most 25% of all people where I live use the rail services (which is the main method of travel to London for work given the drive would be significantly longer and less reliable, that 25% is assuming each passenger from our local station lives within the settlement and they use the trains 400 times a year, twice a day for 200 days). However, even then that doesn't account for the significant numbers of people who are traveling to the settlement or from the settlement to other nearby settlements by rail (either for work or education and there's significant numbers who use the trains for college), nor does it account for those from nearby who drive to the station to travel by train but aren't within the settlement's population. Although, conversely, it also doesn't account for those not of working age. Either way it is a LOT less than 50% of people who could be working and almost certainly is less than 50% of those who are working.

I have never worked for a company in London, but often travel there for meetings. As it allows me to have cheaper travel costs and shorter travel times day in day out but still be able to attend a 9am meeting within London as needed.

As such, if that is a workable pattern for many businesses in the Southeast, I expect that a similar pattern would then follow suit for cities served by HS2.

Often the problem for businesses isn't getting the brightest and best or even finding office space it's finding the admin staff, the junior staff and the cleaners. By moving to an area where your staff can be in London quickly (even if it is so they can go to the theatre after work) whilst you can find all the staff you need and have much cheaper rents the business is likely to thrive more than being in Central London.

Therefore, given that more business will be able to be based in the provinces doing what many of the companies in the Southeast currently do I would say that HS2 would be good for those areas. In the same way that Basingstoke, Farnborough, Swindon, Reading, Guildford, Brighton, etc. are all thriving towns with many people traveling to them for work (as well as for leisure purposes) rather than traveling to London.

In fact, other than for work purposes I hardly travel to London and so most of my personal spend is local to where I live, with a small amount being spent where I work). This is also true for those I know who do work in London.

 

[edwin_m]

But what if your client or co-worker is in Crewe? Why is the distance from the provinces to London always shorter than the distance from London to the provinces?

Exactly the same would apply to a company based in London wishing to do business with a company in Crewe, and when working together there would be a need for people in either to visit the other when necessary.

The difficulty for companies based outside London is that there are far fewer companies within easy reach that they might want to work for or with. The agglomeration effect suggests that if these companies are given better access to others in London or elsewhere, then all the companies and places concerned will benefit.

 

[Altfish]

The direct answer is, no, HS2 is not good for the provinces.

So we should rip up the M6 and M1, close all the main rail lines into London and cancel all internal flights. Then the provinces will boon.

btw I work in the construction industry and I can categorically say that businesses are moving some of their staff out of London for cheaper rentals/staff in Manchester, Leeds and the likes. They all quote excellent rail links and the promise of HS2 as reasons for doing this.

 

[The Ham]

Following my post above, looking at the statistics for the Borough Council area I live in less than 10% of people work the right distance away from home to be working on London. Of this some maybe working somewhere else that is of equal distance and so the figure is probably about 5-7% of workers work in London or semi regularly work in London (I.e. work from home most days but go into the office a few days a week). Yet it is about an hour from London, with good rail links and in the Southeast so therefore "everyone" works in London!

 

[B&I]

Exactly the same would apply to a company based in London wishing to do business with a company in Crewe, and when working together there would be a need for people in either to visit the other when necessary.

The difficulty for companies based outside London is that there are far fewer companies within easy reach that they might want to work for or with. The agglomeration effect suggests that if these companies are given better access to others in London or elsewhere, then all the companies and places concerned will benefit.

There's always going to be some degree of agglomeration effect between interdependent businesses. However, I think that its effect is overstated in this country (largely to justify investment decisions made on other bases), and that it cannot apply uniformly across economic sectors in the way the all-money-must-go-to-London sector claim it does.

Even if the theory is correct, the social consequences of concentrating an entire country's growth at one point have been disastrous. HS2 (and transpirt network development generally) could become part if a project to spread growth out across the country. But if it is seen mainly as a method of extending feasible commuting times to London workplaces, it is unlikely to help at all.

 

[PR1Berske]

So we should rip up the M6 and M1, close all the main rail lines into London and cancel all internal flights. Then the provinces will boon.

.

I'm not against motorways, main rail lines, or internal flights. I am against HS2.

 

[edwin_m]

There's always going to be some degree of agglomeration effect between interdependent businesses. However, I think that its effect is overstated in this country (largely to justify investment decisions made on other bases), and that it cannot apply uniformly across economic sectors in the way the all-money-must-go-to-London sector claim it does.

Even if the theory is correct, the social consequences of concentrating an entire country's growth at one point have been disastrous. HS2 (and transpirt network development generally) could become part if a project to spread growth out across the country. But if it is seen mainly as a method of extending feasible commuting times to London workplaces, it is unlikely to help at all.

Agglomeration is actually used as a reason to invest outside London, in NPR and EGHSR for example. London already has all the agglomeration it needs but other places don't. And it's nothing to do with commuting.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm not against motorways, main rail lines, or internal flights. I am against HS2.

But they all serve a common core purpose. Connection the 'regions' to London (and to each other).

If HS2 is "not good" for the 'regions', then by extending your argument none of the others are either?

 

[Altfish]

I'm not against motorways, main rail lines, or internal flights. I am against HS2.

But the argument was that by building HS2 it will drain all the wealth from the provinces down to London.
So, taking that argument to its logical conclusion if we close all motorways, main rail lines and internal flights then the likes of Manchester and Leeds will have never seen it better.

 

[PR1Berske]

But they all serve a common core purpose. Connection the 'regions' to London (and to each other).

If HS2 is "not good" for the 'regions', then by extending your argument none of the others are either?

But the argument was that by building HS2 it will drain all the wealth from the provinces down to London.
So, taking that argument to its logical conclusion if we close all motorways, main rail lines and internal flights then the likes of Manchester and Leeds will have never seen it better.

Both of you are being very silly and just a touch naughty, let's be honest.

From the first motorway, here in my home town no less!, the road system has centred on each region's sphere of influence. Regional roads feed into dual carriageways feed into motorways: it's structured and focused.

HS2 feeds into London Euston, and at some point in the distant future, legislation might exist to take it beyond the Midlands. Between now and 20, 30, perhaps 40 years hence, it is not a regional railway, it is a London one.

 

[The Planner]

You mean the legislation that takes it to Crewe currently in parliament in the hybrid bill for phase 2A?

 

[PR1Berske]

You mean the legislation that takes it to Crewe currently in parliament in the hybrid bill for phase 2A?

That has not yet been passed into law, yes.

 

[Ianno87]

Both of you are being very silly and just a touch naughty, let's be honest.

From the first motorway, here in my home town no less!, the road system has centred on each region's sphere of influence. Regional roads feed into dual carriageways feed into motorways: it's structured and focused.

HS2 feeds into London Euston, and at some point in the distant future, legislation might exist to take it beyond the Midlands. Between now and 20, 30, perhaps 40 years hence, it is not a regional railway, it is a London one.

And London is (like it or not) sphere of influence for the whole UK. Any part of the UK well connected to it benefits economically. Places not well connected do not - you can see that in evidence already today. Rail is by far the best way of doing this over longer distances, ergo HS2 to shink the distance in the time sense.

Plus HS2 isn't entirely London-centric anyway. Birmingham comes much better connected to the North West and Yorkshire in particular.

 

[B&I]

Agglomeration is actually used as a reason to invest outside London, in NPR and EGHSR for example. London already has all the agglomeration it needs but other places don't. And it's nothing to do with commuting.

I agree with you, but I'm not sure that the people in charge of this country have yet grasped this.