Pro HS2 points needed for article

[Relativenewbie]

I'm really sorry to be asking everyone about this topic which really has been discussed to death, but I'm writing an article in support of HS2 to appear next to an article attacking the proposals.

What are the most general points that I could use to support its construction? I gather that the other writer is going to attack the points about a need to coax people away from other modes of travel, saying that the West Coast Main Line already has most of the traffic on the London-Manchester route and there isn't a lot that HS2 will do to change that.

Please bear in mind that this is going to an audience who care more about the economic benefits rather than technical/prestige reasons (although I understand that they are of course linked)

Many thanks all

 

[jon0844]

Well, the WCML is pretty much full so even if HS2, in the first instance, only really transferred people off that to HS2 it would be a good thing - allowing slower, shorter distance, services to better serve the stations along the way.

Thus, HS2 may not benefit everyone on the WCML, but they will get a vastly improved service because paths don't need to be retained for trains 'flying' through.

HS2 would also, when completed, even help reduce demand on the ECML too.

One thing to make clear is HS2 isn't just a first-class train service to Birmingham (well, it will be to begin with) and that was never the intention, so don't let people just think it's being built to charge politicians and bankers high prices to travel in luxury, while everyone else will be priced out and forced to go on the old line.

Even with SET charging extra for HS1 (but that doesn't even have first class), I still don't think it will be unaffordable. Competition will see to it that HS2 services have to be competitive. However, of course you'd expect it to be more expensive - as you generally expect to pay less for a slower service. Do people moan about Virgin now when you could travel to Birmingham from London on London Midland for a lot less? Are the LM trains busier than Virgin for this route? I bet the answer is no, as people value the speed and increased comfort.

HS2 will be faster and almost certainly more comfortable, and no doubt much more reliable too.

 

[Metroland]

- Rail travel has grown significantly in last 20 years, up from around 32 billion passenger km in 1991 to 51 billion passenger km now. A lot of this growth is on this principal north-south main lines. The current business case for HS2 is based on projections of an increase of passenger demand by only 1.4% per year.

- HSR allows significant expansion in capacity to allow more freight and commuter traffic on conventional lines, and new high speed services between major conurbations of the UK where most people live: London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, East Midlands, Leeds, Tyneside and Teeside and potentially the central belt of Scotland.

- No other form of transport can match journey times over these typical distances on a typical point-to-point basis.

- HS2 could provide 18 trains per hour, seating 1100 people per train or 19,800 per hour per direction. That's twice the typical capacity of the M1 in a space not much more than an A road.

- HS2 is space efficient, with a trackbed being typically 22 meters wide. Meaning for a 300km long railway, it takes up 22 x 300,000m = 6,600,000 m2 or 6.6 sq km. (Heathrow is 12.14sq km)

- HS2 is either climate neutral or can reduce GHG, especially if more use is made of the classic network. A new motorway or airport would increase CO2/Energy use. HS2 could potentially be even better if run from renewable energy. The trackbed, for example could be used in conjunction with solar panels http://www.rail.co/2011/06/07/high-speed-rail-tunnel-in-belgium-gets-16000-solar-panels/

- HS2 is an investment, and will only get built if it can show a return for each pound invested, unlike most other government projects. Conservative estimates suggest 43.7bn return.

- It's one of the only transport projects to reduce the north/south divide and significantly increase access to important financial centres and infrastructure like airports. Improving the motorway network would encourage people to drive and cause more congestion around major centres.

- HS2 would cost around £30bn, but private sector input could reduce this figure substantially. Typically £1-2 bn would be spent per year or 1/300th - 1/600th of public expenditure. The government is likely to lease it to private companies anyway, and get a good proportion of the money back http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52b977f4-9e8e-11e0-9469-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1QJCClKdt

- There is very little or no evidence that new technology suggest as video conferencing will reduce the demand for travel, indeed, there is evidence to suggest it may increase travel as new connections are made between people who would not otherwise have met! Many people have made friends and business associates from the internet, and found themselves travelling to meet people they would not have met otherwise.

- Most of the world is building HSR including most European countries, the USA, China, Russia and countries in the Middle East. Good quality infrastructure is critical to business creating jobs and prosperity. The UK cannot afford to be left behind.

- Rail has a significant modal share of people travelling between major centres, typically 30-80% and improving it is important to the whole economy.

- There is no evidence if the £30bn isn't spent on HSR, it will be spent on the national network. Each project must pass its own value for money tests. Also very little can be done with the present network to significantly increase capacity, at least enough to meet projected demand.

http://www.greengauge21.net/

http://www.campaignforhsr.com/

http://www.dft.gov.uk/topics/high-speed-rail/

 

[Relativenewbie]

- Rail travel has grown significantly in last 20 years, up from around 32 billion passenger km in 1991 to 51 billion passenger km now. A lot of this growth is on this principal north-south main lines. The current business case for HS2 is based on projections of an increase of passenger demand by only 1.4% per year.

- HSR allows significant expansion in capacity to allow more freight and commuter traffic on conventional lines, and new high speed services between major conurbations of the UK where most people live: London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, East Midlands, Leeds, Tyneside and Teeside and potentially the central belt of Scotland.

- No other form of transport can match journey times over these typical distances on a typical point-to-point basis.

- HS2 could provide 18 trains per hour, seating 1100 people per train or 19,800 per hour per direction. That's twice the typical capacity of the M1 in a space not much more than an A road.

- HS2 is space efficient, with a trackbed being typically 22 meters wide. Meaning for a 300km long railway, it takes up 22 x 300,000m = 6,600,000 m2 or 6.6 sq km. (Heathrow is 12.14sq km)

- HS2 is either climate neutral or can reduce GHG, especially if more use is made of the classic network. A new motorway or airport would increase CO2/Energy use. HS2 could potentially be even better if run from renewable energy. The trackbed, for example could be used in conjunction with solar panels http://www.rail.co/2011/06/07/high-speed-rail-tunnel-in-belgium-gets-16000-solar-panels/

- HS2 is an investment, and will only get built if it can show a return for each pound invested, unlike most other government projects. Conservative estimates suggest 43.7bn return.

- It's one of the only transport projects to reduce the north/south divide and significantly increase access to important financial centres and infrastructure like airports. Improving the motorway network would encourage people to drive and cause more congestion around major centres.

- HS2 would cost around £30bn, but private sector input could reduce this figure substantially. Typically £1-2 bn would be spent per year or 1/300th - 1/600th of public expenditure. The government is likely to lease it to private companies anyway, and get a good proportion of the money back http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52b977f4-9e8e-11e0-9469-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1QJCClKdt

- There is very little or no evidence that new technology suggest as video conferencing will reduce the demand for travel, indeed, there is evidence to suggest it may increase travel as new connections are made between people who would not otherwise have met! Many people have made friends and business associates from the internet, and found themselves travelling to meet people they would not have met otherwise.

- Most of the world is building HSR including most European countries, the USA, China, Russia and countries in the Middle East. Good quality infrastructure is critical to business creating jobs and prosperity. The UK cannot afford to be left behind.

- Rail has a significant modal share of people travelling between major centres, typically 30-80% and improving it is important to the whole economy.

- There is no evidence if the £30bn isn't spent on HSR, it will be spent on the national network. Each project must pass its own value for money tests. Also very little can be done with the present network to significantly increase capacity, at least enough to meet projected demand.

http://www.greengauge21.net/

http://www.campaignforhsr.com/

http://www.dft.gov.uk/topics/high-speed-rail/

thanks, that was very useful. I'll post the article up when it's published

 

[Metroland]

The DFT have also published some FAQ

What is the Government proposing?

The Government is consulting on proposals for a 'Y-shaped' high speed rail network that would reduce journey times from London to Birmingham to 49 minutes; and from London to Manchester and Leeds to around 80 minutes.

Connections onto existing rail lines would also be included, allowing new direct high speed services to our major towns and cities. The capacity released on existing lines by transferring long distance journeys to high speed rail would allow an expansion of commuter, regional and freight services. Links to Heathrow, other airports and to the Channel Tunnel would also be built, providing a further alternative to short-haul aviation.

Why do we need a high speed rail network?

The Government believes that a national high speed rail network offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the way we travel in Britain.

Britain's railways are struggling to cope with the huge increases in passenger numbers we've seen in recent years. In 1994 rail passengers travelled fewer than 18 billion miles, in 2009 this rose to almost 32 billion miles. Increasingly passengers are finding that it’s standing room only at peak times and Network Rail have said that by 2024, the southern end of the West Coast Mainline will be effectively full.

The Government believes a new rail line is needed simply to address these capacity issues. However, by making this a high speed network, we also could grasp a once-in-a-generation opportunity to re-shape Britain's economic geography and ensure that every part of the country contributes to, and benefits from, future growth and prosperity.

Wouldn't it be better just to upgrade the existing lines? I've heard people say that 'Rail Package 2' offers an alternative to high speed rail.

The last major upgrade of the West Coast Main Line a few years ago caused serious disruption to passengers and 10 years worth of delays. We don’t think it would be reasonable to subject travellers to more of the same just to deliver comparatively small improvements – particularly as the West Coast Main Line is carrying around twice as many people as four years ago.

In addition, Rail Package 2 doesn’t provide anything close to the level of transport benefits of high speed rail, for example, it doesn’t create any released capacity (assuming all new capacity goes to long distance services). Nor would it offer the same impact in terms of economic growth, regeneration and employment.

Lastly, Rail Package 2 is not an alternative to a high speed network but to a London-Birmingham line so wouldn’t provide the foundation for a wider national network.

What's the business case for building a high speed rail network?

There's a strong business case for a high speed network. The Government is proposing to build a 'Y-shaped' network from London to Birmingham and then on to Manchester and Leeds. A network of this kind would create around £44 billion in benefits for the UK – well over £2 of benefits for every £1 spent. The first stage alone (London to the West Midlands) would deliver around 40,000 jobs as well as providing the foundation for the more significant benefits provided by the wider network.

But won't the environmental damage be too great?

The Government is committed to doing all it can to lessen the impacts of any new line on the landscape and on local people. The proposed line has been designed sensitively and carefully and includes mitigation measures wherever possible which would do a huge amount to reduce its local effects. Use would be made of trees and 'green tunnels' (where the line is built in a deep cutting, and covered with a 'roof' which is planted with grass) to disguise the line and make it blend in with the local environment, while noise barriers or earth bunding would be used to block noise.

It is also important to note that:

Over 10% of the line would be in tunnel

The line would be no more than 22 metres wide in any place, about one third the width of a motorway.

Train technology is improving, the latest high speed trains are already significantly quieter than their counterparts from recent decades, and line-side noise mitigation technology is now greatly improved.

It is also important to consider the environmental impact of the alternatives – new or wider motorways would require very significant land take, not to mention the noise and air quality effects. Upgrading the existing rail network, as well as being an ineffective solution to the problem, would have a large impact on those living along those routes.

Why does the line go though the Chilterns? Can't you go another way?

High speed rail lines have to be quite straight to maintain their speed. There are no viable routes for a high speed rail line between London and the West Midlands that do not cross the Chilterns at some point. However, the proposed route through the Chilterns makes full use of tunnels, cuttings and existing transport corridors to minimise its impacts on the landscape

Why can't the line just follow an existing transport route like a motorway?

Wherever possible we have followed existing transport routes such as main roads and railways. However, high speed rail lines need to be quite straight to maintain their speed and as most existing roads and railways have more curves, it would be impossible to follow them for the whole route.

What about fares, won't they have to be very high?

Not at all. Our proposals assume a fares structure in line with that of the existing railway - demonstrating that a new high speed line could operate effectively, generating sufficient demand and revenues, without needing to charge premium fares.

Why are you proposing to spend so much on a new high speed line when commuter trains are so over-crowded?

High speed rail isn’t something we’re proposing to do instead of improving commuter services but in addition. The Government is already spending billions over the coming years to improve commuter services by buying extra carriages and building new infrastructure. Moreover, in the long-run high speed rail would be the best way of relieving pressure on key commuter routes connecting potential growth areas with the capital.

I've heard you're only proposing a line that goes as far as Birmingham, is that right?

No. The Government has been clear that London to Birmingham would only be the first stage. The Government is proposing a 'Y-shaped' network running on to Leeds and Manchester with connections onto existing rail lines also included, which would allow new direct high speed services to other cities off the new line.

But what about the CO2 levels? I've heard that High Speed Two will only be 'carbon neutral'.

A high speed rail line would allow a huge increase in travel and would generate massive economic benefits and would do all that while being broadly carbon neutral.

I've heard that that the business case is based on the idea that all the time passengers spend on trains is wasted. Isn't that stupid?

We agree that travelling by train gives people the opportunity to work - indeed one of the big advantages of high speed rail is that it can attract passengers from other forms of transport to the railways, where they can use their time more productively.

However, our reserach shows that , even when factoring in productive time on trains, the benefit: cost ratio of high speed does not significantly alter. Lower benefits are produced from some travellers who would otherwise still travel by train, but increased benefits are produced from people switching from other transport to high speed rail and from the reduced crowding the high speed rail will bring.

Morever, the evidence clearly suggests that business passengers do value quicker journeys. For example, business travellers choose to fly between Glasgow and London, even though they could work more productively and for longer on the train.

Will HS2 only create 40,000 jobs? If so surely you could spend £32bn more effectively to create jobs?

No, 40,000 is simply the number of jobs HS2 would support immediately around the new stations and in railway operations and construction – and even then only for the first phase of the line, from London to the West Midlands.

In addition to these jobs, a high speed rail network would also transform our economic geography, bring our key cities closer together, enable businesses to operate more productively and support much wider employment growth and regeneration

 

[jon0844]

Reading this story today, I wonder if the anti-HS2 campaigners should be arguing for all the money to go into road building. If they're lucky, they'd get their cul-de-sacs resurfaced for the same money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924687