More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[daodao]

That's a bit harsh on everywhere north of Crewe!

One of the main benefits of the full phase 2 would be bringing Manchester and Birmingham within commuting time; 41 minutes instead of 83 minutes. Much/most of that gain is via phase 2b.

Plus everything else everyone else has told you

Phase 2b doesn't benefit Merseyside, Wigan, Lancashire, Cumbria or Scotland, or areas east of the Pennines, so in the bigger picture of HS2, the benefit is relatively small and confined to those parts of Greater Manchester that don't need "levelling up". However, it will be very expensive to construct, particularly within Greater Manchester.

Manchester Airport is much easier for people in Stockport/Wilmslow et al (or anyone near the M60 generally) to reach than Piccadilly, it is also next to lots of open terrain and has a bunch of existing transport links to it. It's a premade transport hub.

The proposed "Manchester Airport" station would actually be in Hale Barns, on the site of the existing "Four Seasons" hotel, but about 2 km from the existing Manchester Airport rail/tram/bus station. Existing public transport connections to this site are very poor, but it is next to junction 6 of the M56.

 

[mmh]

I'm sure you are aware of how much sprawl is required to provide housing in the US. There is no way that could be replicated here - the 3m people in the Denver metro area live in an area the size of Wales

That's fine - the 3m people in Wales live in an area the size of Wales.

 

[The Ham]

That's fine - the 3m people in Wales live in an area the size of Wales.

Technically Wales has a population of 3.2 million, so is actually more dense (assuming that the land area is actually the same).

 

[HSTEd]

If your belief is that house prices are determined by number of homes available - I don't see how decreasing density would help. 10 homes in a well planned dense development is the same number of homes as 10 homes in an American style suburban sprawl. And you have more land left over to build the next 10, not to mention a lower land take in the supporting infrastructure.

The reality is that the planning system, supposedly meant to prevent sprawl and other 'negative impacts of development' is actually used by the homeowning classes to strangle new construction.
In doing so the NIMBY-Local Government complex keeps house prices high and thus enriches the portion of the population that owns the majority of the housing.

Meanwhile they use fear of sprawl to cow everyone into accepting this nightmare.
And as for density, that's normally just a euphemism for packing the peasantry into tiny flats with no real outdoor space, no real privacy and no real standard of living.
There is absolute no incentive for "well planned developments", if they can even exist, because scarcity means people have to take what they can get.

At this point I believe this system to be so deleterious that allowing massive sprawl would still be preferable. NIMBY control of local government has become so total that no significant amount of new construction will ever occur. The only solution left is to set the entire rotten edifice of the planning system metaphorically ablaze.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the purpose of HS2 going to Manchester airport? Surely people able to make a quicker journey south would go to Heathrow which has more destinations and is cheaper once you get there. Are people from Watford really going to go to Manchester airport?
Please advise!

It's really South Manchester Parkway, replacing Stockport for the huge number of people who drive to the station from wealthy south Manchester and north Cheshire. Arguably 2B might be negative without it as it'd cause significant added car traffic into Manchester.

 

[MattRat]

I've just remembered something that I was thinking about a while back, related to this topic (what to do next?).

Would it be possible to devolve Phase 2b and NPR somehow, and let the North handle it's planning, construction, and costs, thereby taking pressure off Westminster, and also meaning the North gets what it wants, as long as it can pay for it itself?

 

[Nottingham59]

What is the purpose of HS2 going to Manchester airport? Surely people able to make a quicker journey south would go to Heathrow which has more destinations and is cheaper once you get there. Are people from Watford really going to go to Manchester airport?
Please advise!

It has no purpose at all. HS2 is a fast railway to London. For every 100 people arriving at Manchester Airport, I doubt if more than two are heading to London.

The last thing the airport needs is a second railway station, which is why the airport won't pay for it.

HS2 Manchester does need a station accessible from the suburbs, but not at Davenport Green, where space will always be expensive, because of the airport.

IMO, much better locations for peripheral stations would be on the A6144 Carrington Spur Road and at Guide Bridge, both with direct access off the M60.

So NPR would go Liverpool, Warrington low-level; across Carrington Moss; tunnel to Piccadilly; surface to Guide Bridge Parkway; tunnel to Marsden; Huddersfield; then onto Bradford or Leeds.

HS2 would use the same Carrington alignment to approach Manchester from the West, call at Piccadilly and terminate at Guide Bridge, where there is plenty of space for the depot.

The same Western approach could also carry Manchester - Scotland HS2 traffic and NPR Leeds-Man-Preston services. Even with four tracks, Carrington Moss would need fewer tunnelled km than the loop around by the airport.

You could also build an interchange station where HS2 crosses the M56, which would pick up HS2 trains from Liverpool, Preston and Manchester.

 

[Parjon]

It's really South Manchester Parkway, replacing Stockport for the huge number of people who drive to the station from wealthy south Manchester and north Cheshire. Arguably 2B might be negative without it as it'd cause significant added car traffic into Manchester.

HS2s own economic assessments stated that there was only a poor business case for a Manchester airport station, and that minor adjustments to the assumptions were enough to tip it into negative territory.

The station was supposed to be contingent, therefore, on financial contribution. Such is the government's willingness to subvert their own reports when it suits them, there has been nothing more said and yet the unjustified station remains. The warped HS2 line remains. The extra cost burden to Liverpool being connected remains.

No one would drive that far into Manchester through traffic, and struggle with parking, to get the train out. What would be the point! They would be probably equally unlikely to battle their way to the airport.

Every problem being faced by HS2 has its origin in dishonesty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They would be probably equally unlikely to battle their way to the airport.

They drive to Stockport now in their thousands, despite the A6 being congested - by contrast the airport is really accessible via dual carriageways. On some Avanti trains more board there than Piccadilly.

But then HS2 Ltd were too thick to realise the benefits of an M25 Parkway, too (despite France making great success of such stations), so I'm not sure I respect their assessments there. Thus the Range Rovers and Jags will just continue on the M40, and the Chiltonians will continue to moan.

 

[GJMarshy]

It has no purpose at all. HS2 is a fast railway to London. For every 100 people arriving at Manchester Airport, I doubt if more than two are heading to London.

The last thing the airport needs is a second railway station, which is why the airport won't pay for it.

HS2 Manchester does need a station accessible from the suburbs, but not at Davenport Green, where space will always be expensive, because of the airport.

IMO, much better locations for peripheral stations would be on the A6144 Carrington Spur Road and at Guide Bridge, both with direct access off the M60.

So NPR would go Liverpool, Warrington low-level; across Carrington Moss; tunnel to Piccadilly; surface to Guide Bridge Parkway; tunnel to Marsden; Huddersfield; then onto Bradford or Leeds.

HS2 would use the same Carrington alignment to approach Manchester from the West, call at Piccadilly and terminate at Guide Bridge, where there is plenty of space for the depot.

The same Western approach could also carry Manchester - Scotland HS2 traffic and NPR Leeds-Man-Preston services. Even with four tracks, Carrington Moss would need fewer tunnelled km than the loop around by the airport.

You could also build an interchange station where HS2 crosses the M56, which would pick up HS2 trains from Liverpool, Preston and Manchester.

I can personally vouch for how effective a Manchester Airport parkway station would be.

As someone who uses the Wilmslow (and sometimes Stockport) Avanti service to London fairly regularly, hundreds of people get on/off the trains at those stations. Sometimes more than Piccadilly.

Only two weeks ago when I got off at Wilmslow on the way back from London, almost the whole train seemed to get off. The North Cheshire/South Manchester to London market is huge, and valuable. The decision to include a stop at Manchester Airport reflects this.

A parkway station at Carrington would be nowhere near as useful. The commutable population density is lower, and demand from North Manchester (and Lancashire) to London is considerably lower.

If you’re building HS2 2b, it has to include the airport station to make sense.

 

[Nottingham59]

As someone who uses the Wilmslow (and sometimes Stockport) Avanti service to London fairly regularly, hundreds of people get on/off the trains at those stations. Sometimes more than Piccadilly.

So run 2tph HS2 trains from Piccadilly picking up at Stockport and Wilmslow and Alderley Edge to join HS2 at Crewe. Which is what Phase 2a gives you already.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I was guided by the figures that suggest that London-Wilmslow only generates £20m a year compared to Manchester's £204m.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/main-revenue-flows-on-the-wcml.253843/

Perhaps those £20m are concentrated into relatively few trains throughout the day? And I would expect the bulk of HS2 demand from London will be into central Manchester.

If you're right about Carrington, then forget that idea and go straight through to Manchester non-stop. A 360kmh HS2 line across Carrington Moss with 8m diameter tunnels straight into Manchester will arrive at Piccadilly when the trains that zig-zagged around Tatton at 230kmh are still at the platform at Davenport Green.

 

[HSTEd]

So run 2tph HS2 trains from Piccadilly picking up at Stockport and Wilmslow and Alderley Edge to join HS2 at Crewe. Which is what Phase 2a gives you already.

Which means that this project frees essentially no capacity in Manchester and also constrains at least two of the three trains per hour to a short length.
You will slash your capacity uplift to almost nothing.

If you're right about Carrington, then forget that idea and go straight through to Manchester non-stop. A 360kmh HS2 line across Carrington Moss with 8m diameter tunnels straight into Manchester will arrive at Piccadilly when the trains that zig-zagged around Tatton at 230kmh are still at the platform at Davenport Green.

You were willing to sacrifice several minutes of running time on all trains with a station at Carrington, why is the Airport so unacceptable when it has obviously superior transport connections for other modes?

In addition, land at the airport is not at all expensive, since the bulk of the land in the area is low value agricultural land.

EDIT:
Also those figures are weird because they do not list Stockport flows at all. I think Manchester BR includes Stockport.

 

[GJMarshy]

So run 2tph HS2 trains from Piccadilly picking up at Stockport and Wilmslow and Alderley Edge to join HS2 at Crewe. Which is what Phase 2a gives you already.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I was guided by the figures that suggest that London-Wilmslow only generates £20m a year compared to Manchester's £204m.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/main-revenue-flows-on-the-wcml.253843/

Perhaps those £20m are concentrated into relatively few trains throughout the day? And I would expect the bulk of HS2 demand from London will be into central Manchester.

If you're right about Carrington, then forget that idea and go straight through to Manchester non-stop. A 360kmh HS2 line across Carrington Moss with 8m diameter tunnels straight into Manchester will arrive at Piccadilly when the trains that zig-zagged around Tatton at 230kmh are still at the platform at Davenport Green.

If you run HS2 trains from 2a through Wilmslow and Stockport, you lose the benefits of released capacity for local services. So whilst at first glance it might seem a reasonable solution, it’s a non-option.

Yes you’re definitely right about journey times being similar, even if you enter Manchester from the west. At those speeds with no stops, there’ll be little to no difference. In fact it might even be a more useful alignment for a shared NPR/HS2 line, where it can run parallel to the M62 toward Liverpool.

Again though, the issue presents itself that the large south mcr/north Cheshire-London (and hopefully soon Birmingham) market isn’t served.

There was a number of studies from HS2 (and I think Arup) that looked at a western approach into Manchester, with the airport station being on a SE-NW alignment heading toward Carrington, then veering NE into Manchester with a much shorter tunnel. For whatever reason it was ruled out. Presumably that reason still stands.

Everything is possible though given the uncertainty around 2b and HS2 atm. One thing we do know though is it’ll take a heck of a lot longer to be completed than we thought!

 

[stuu]

That's fine - the 3m people in Wales live in an area the size of Wales.

Fair point. But I'm probably not alone in being glad that they don't live in half-acre blocks evenly spread over the entire country, with the only breaks being the next collection of gas stations, Denny's and In and Out Burger

 

[PsychoMouse]

In and Out Burger

You'd be lucky to get an In'n'Out in Denver, that's Culver country!

 

[Mordac]

The reality is that the planning system, supposedly meant to prevent sprawl and other 'negative impacts of development' is actually used by the homeowning classes to strangle new construction.
In doing so the NIMBY-Local Government complex keeps house prices high and thus enriches the portion of the population that owns the majority of the housing.

Meanwhile they use fear of sprawl to cow everyone into accepting this nightmare.
And as for density, that's normally just a euphemism for packing the peasantry into tiny flats with no real outdoor space, no real privacy and no real standard of living.
There is absolute no incentive for "well planned developments", if they can even exist, because scarcity means people have to take what they can get.

At this point I believe this system to be so deleterious that allowing massive sprawl would still be preferable. NIMBY control of local government has become so total that no significant amount of new construction will ever occur. The only solution left is to set the entire rotten edifice of the planning system metaphorically ablaze.

Don't forget where they can be fleeced by freeholders on spurious service charges as well.

 

[BRX]

The reality is that the planning system, supposedly meant to prevent sprawl and other 'negative impacts of development' is actually used by the homeowning classes to strangle new construction.
In doing so the NIMBY-Local Government complex keeps house prices high and thus enriches the portion of the population that owns the majority of the housing.

Meanwhile they use fear of sprawl to cow everyone into accepting this nightmare.
And as for density, that's normally just a euphemism for packing the peasantry into tiny flats with no real outdoor space, no real privacy and no real standard of living.
There is absolute no incentive for "well planned developments", if they can even exist, because scarcity means people have to take what they can get.

At this point I believe this system to be so deleterious that allowing massive sprawl would still be preferable. NIMBY control of local government has become so total that no significant amount of new construction will ever occur. The only solution left is to set the entire rotten edifice of the planning system metaphorically ablaze.

The throwing the baby out with the bathwater school of thought.

 

[HSTEd]

The throwing the baby out with the bathwater school of thought.

People have been promising that they could throw out only the bathwater for decades at this point, and the housing situation just keeps deterioriating.

At this point it is likely that the baby only exists to prevent the bathwater being thrown out.

 

[Trainbike46]

There are other issues in the UK that worsen and prevent improvement of the housing situation in the UK, including the way social housing is handled, lack of quality control on construction, etc.

Inherently, there are large political forces that don't WANT the housing situation resolved, and planning is only one of the many tools that get used to keep house prices high (and out of reach for many people)

 

[thaitransit]

Isn't this High Speed 2 Project mostly to increase passenger train capacity into and out of the London area? Secondly to allow fast cheap commuting options for people in northern England to daily commute into employment in London? Essentially turning Leeds, Manchester etc into nothing more than commuter towns of London.

On a separate note. I have always found it strange than London's suburban sprawl isn't continuous urban development to at least 60 km out from central London in every direction. This would have allowed 90% of London residents to have live in mostly fully detached housing. Thus similar to Australian cities that absolutely dominate the entire region.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Isn't this High Speed 2 Project mostly to increase passenger train capacity into and out of the London area? Secondly to allow fast cheap commuting options for people in northern England to daily commute into employment in London? Essentially turning Leeds, Manchester etc into nothing more than commuter towns of London.

Yes and no, it relieves capacity on the West Coast mainline where a lot of train traffic across the UK in general happens. It's at full capacity with high speed, freight, regional and local trains. By moving the high speed trains off the tracks, there's more capacity for freight, regional and local trains. So it helps with trains across the UK. The west coast mainline is huge. So it does help London but it also helps other places. The eastern leg would have relieved other mainlines as well (sry can't remember which ones, Midland and east coast I think? Please correct me) but unfortunately it's not being built in full.

It guess you could commute from Manchester/Leeds to London but I'm pretty sure that that majority of people who use UK's high speed trains are holiday travellers or are visiting family. (Fact check me plz. Idk the figures)

 

[HSTEd]

On a separate note. I have always found it strange than London's suburban sprawl isn't continuous urban development to at least 60 km out from central London in every direction. This would have allowed 90% of London residents to have live in mostly fully detached housing. Thus similar to Australian cities that absolutely dominate the entire region.

The Government has ordered that that not be allowed to happen.

See the Metropolitan Green Belt.

 

[thaitransit]

The Government has ordered that that not be allowed to happen.

See the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The approach was quite different here in Australia where areas to be preserved were turned into parklands or national parks that cannot be used for any purpose other that natural preservation or recreational activities. Anything else that was there before was removed.

Outside of those protected areas was open to urbanisation and miles and miles of cheap land was rezoned from agricultural to suburban growth. This was mostly done to prevent Australian cities from becoming too built up and ending up like new york.

However former country towns and villages were consumed by the city and became suburbs themselves. The net result was 80% of the population lives in a handful of major cities and the rest of the country is extremely sparely populated.

 

[eldomtom2]

I'm sure you are aware of how much sprawl is required to provide housing in the US. There is no way that could be replicated here - the 3m people in the Denver metro area live in an area the size of Wales

I'm no fan of American sprawl, but it's worth nothing that because of the way metropolitan areas in the US are defined - they are always groupings of counties - the Denver metropolitan area is more countryside than city.

At this point I believe this system to be so deleterious that allowing massive sprawl would still be preferable. NIMBY control of local government has become so total that no significant amount of new construction will ever occur. The only solution left is to set the entire rotten edifice of the planning system metaphorically ablaze.

This an absolutely ludicrous position. Planning does more than prevent sprawl. Do you want heavy industry right next to your house? Or for it to be insulated with asbestos?

On a separate note. I have always found it strange than London's suburban sprawl isn't continuous urban development to at least 60 km out from central London in every direction. This would have allowed 90% of London residents to have live in mostly fully detached housing.

I don't think paving over everything for car-choked suburbia is worth it just so people can live in detached houses. And if the decision is building tall or building wide, I'll pick building tall any day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a separate note. I have always found it strange than London's suburban sprawl isn't continuous urban development to at least 60 km out from central London in every direction. This would have allowed 90% of London residents to have live in mostly fully detached housing. Thus similar to Australian cities that absolutely dominate the entire region.

I'm not sure continuous, monotonous urban sprawl is much to show off about. Better to use the land more efficiently, which means building up. One thing the UK does badly is high quality family flats with good balconies - houses aren't the only option. Though we also need to fix (get rid of) leasehold to make that attractive.

 

[Trainbike46]

I'm not sure continuous, monotonous urban sprawl is much to show off about. Better to use the land more efficiently, which means building up. One thing the UK does badly is high quality family flats with good balconies - houses aren't the only option. Though we also need to fix (get rid of) leasehold to make that attractive.

And high-density doesn't necessarily mean flats - victorian-style terraces can achieve high densities while still offering people back gardens, so can be a valuable part of the mix. There's no good reason not to build things like that anymore. High-quality tenements like in Edinburgh can be a valuable part of the housing mix too, and they typically avoid the leasehold problem.

Though I agree we need steps to make flats both higher quality and more attractive. Leasehold is a pain if you want to own your house (my flat is in a leasehold building, but that doesn't really affect me as I'm a renter anyway)

 

[Bletchleyite]

And high-density doesn't necessarily mean flats - victorian-style terraces can achieve high densities while still offering people back gardens, so can be a valuable part of the mix. There's no good reason not to build things like that anymore. High-quality tenements like in Edinburgh can be a valuable part of the housing mix too, and they typically avoid the leasehold problem.

Tenement ownership is basically commonhold (similar to condominium ownership as is common in the US), which can be used in England now and would be if we banned leasehold as we should. The actual buildings are blocks of flats no different from any others.

Three-floor terraces are quite efficient while allowing people to have houses as British people generally prefer. There's quite a few in newer MK estates and they're quite desirable.

Though I agree we need steps to make flats both higher quality and more attractive. Leasehold is a pain if you want to own your house (my flat is in a leasehold building, but that doesn't really affect me as I'm a renter anyway)

Leasehold is a feudalist scam and needs abolished.

 

[mike57]

And as for density, that's normally just a euphemism for packing the peasantry into tiny flats with no real outdoor space, no real privacy and no real standard of living.

At the risk of going off topic I dont think the density of devlopment is the (only) issue, I think the problem is the quality of what is built.

I can understand that the NIMBY attitude is probably responsible for decisions taken with respect to HS2 which have nothing to do with building HS2 and are just to ensure that there isnt too much 'kick off' from the areas through which it passes. Obviously this is a two sided coin, people do not want their local environment wrecked, but equally if something like HS2 is deemed 'required' for the wider good of the country then a balance has to be struck.

So the question - How much of HS2 cost could be attributed to, I will put politely, addressing the concerns of the area it passes through. Put simply if the government just said 'tough if you dont like it move' and built it anyway.

My own view, HS2 will be a financial black hole for many years, costs will further escalate. Who carries the financial risks is also the problem, fixed price with the contractor taking the risk sounds good, but in that scenario every minor change or 'out of contract' issue will be the subject of enless argueing, and guess what, more cost. Maybe the UK government should take the risk, and sub contract the services and and construction that is needed on on a cost plus basis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At the risk of going off topic I dont think the density of devlopment is the (only) issue, I think the problem is the quality of what is built.

I'd probably agree. My mate lives in a housing association flat, and both the design and the construction quality is awful.

 

[stuu]

I'm not sure continuous, monotonous urban sprawl is much to show off about. Better to use the land more efficiently, which means building up. One thing the UK does badly is high quality family flats with good balconies - houses aren't the only option. Though we also need to fix (get rid of) leasehold to make that attractive.

Absolutely. I have rented places (airbnb) a couple of times which had balconies bigger than some gardens in suburban developments. It could be done so much better