We need High speed Rail, but Is HS2 really Needed?

[B&I]

In summary, then, you feel that the risk to the economy of Liverpool through being at a slightly greater disadvantage (compared to Manchester) for journey times to London than today far outweighs the certainty of the improvements to the rail service to everywhere served by HS2 (including Liverpool) and the economic benefit that will bring to the U.K. as a whole, including Liverpool.

In my opinion, the risk to the economy of Liverpool is a) small and b) of negligible probability, but the certainty of transport benefit is a) larger and b) certain.

You seem to be asserting both that it is a certainty that Liverpool will benefit economically from HS2, and that there is a risk (albeit you consider it both small and negligible, not that I'd call £50 million per annum small) that it will suffer economic detriment. I'm confused.

Or are you asserting that, if the national economy benefits, then Liverpool's will as well ? I thought you said that you understood the differential effects of the current economic situation on different cities.

No offence, but KPMG's analysis carries greater weight with me than your opinion. And people losing jobs and ending up poorer counts for more with me than 'transport benefit'.

 

[B&I]

Do you think that KPMG were infallible in that one report whose conclusion about Liverpool hasn't been repeated?

Is there any evidence to contradict it ? And if this report is fallible, how much of the other evidence commissioned by HS2 is fallible as well ?

 

[Bald Rick]

With HS2, it's 96 minutes, and 2tph - while it might not be gaining as much as other cities (unless some other scheme builds the 20 mile link) time-wise, it does gain in frequency, which most of the rest don't (Preston as the key exception).

Hang on, the link would only be 20 miles long? That’s doesn’t serve Liverpool either! That’s all very well for Runcorn, but isn’t there a risk it will destroy the economy of Liverpool?

 

[B&I]

HS2 disadvantaging Liverpool is an argument for the proposed NPR/HS2 spur to Liverpool not an argument against building the whole line!

When did I say it was ? As I have already said, of course I would be happier if HS2 was built the whole way to Liverpool, but I would still think there were flaws to the project.

 

[B&I]

Hang on, the link would only be 20 miles long? That’s doesn’t serve Liverpool either! That’s all very well for Runcorn, but isn’t there a risk it will destroy the economy of Liverpool?

Are you pretending for comedy purposes not to know that the planned HS2 trunk passes 20 miles east of Liverpool ? Or do you not know very much about the geography of the north west, which would explain some of your other comments ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Do you, too, think that KPMG somehow managed to miss all this when it concluded that Liverpool was at risk of economic shrinkage after HS2 is complete ?

Interestingly, the HS2 report (by KPMG) into Regional Economic Impacts actually said this...

In particular for the rest of Great Britain (i.e. outside of Greater London and the Phase Two city regions), the forecast productivity gains are significant, even after the effects of business location

 

[Bald Rick]

Are you pretending for comedy purposes not to know that the planned HS2 trunk passes 20 miles east of Liverpool ? Or do you not know very much about the geography of the north west, which would explain some of your other comments ?

The whole thread is comedy gold, just adding my contribution.

 

[Chester1]

Hang on, the link would only be 20 miles long? That’s doesn’t serve Liverpool either! That’s all very well for Runcorn, but isn’t there a risk it will destroy the economy of Liverpool?

When did I say it was ? As I have already said, of course I would be happier if HS2 was built the whole way to Liverpool, but I would still think there were flaws to the project.

Are you pretending for comedy purposes not to know that the planned HS2 trunk passes 20 miles east of Liverpool ? Or do you not know very much about the geography of the north west, which would explain some of your other comments ?

My comment wasn't aimed at you. I don't think Bald Rick knew that the HS2 spur to join the WCML south of Wigan will pass within 20 miles of Liverpool city centre. Some sort of link should be a no brainer. I would use the freight line through Warrington to serve the town centre with basically a new HS alignment either side of Warrington. The line will be largely redundant once Fiddlers Ferry power station closes.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

You seem to be asserting both that it is a certainty that Liverpool will benefit economically from HS2, and that there is a risk (albeit you consider it both small and negligible, not that I'd call £50 million per annum small) that it will suffer economic detriment. I'm confused.

Or are you asserting that, if the national economy benefits, then Liverpool's will as well ? I thought you said that you understood the differential effects of the current economic situation on different cities.

No offence, but KPMG's analysis carries greater weight with me than your opinion. And people losing jobs and ending up poorer counts for more with me than 'transport benefit'.

In the grand scheme of things I would suggest £50M is in fact small. Liverpool FC have signed 3 players this calendar year each of whose transfer fee was more than that amount. Perhaps you should go down to Anfield and protest at their profligacy.

 

[B&I]

In the grand scheme of things I would suggest £50M is in fact small. Liverpool FC have signed 3 players this calendar year each of whose transfer fee was more than that amount. Perhaps you should go down to Anfield and protest at their profligacy.

I'm sure your views on the insignificance of a £50 million loss to the local economy per annum would come as a great comfort to the people whose loss of jobs and / or income that would represent. An argument based on the amount of this country's GDP squandered on football is hardly a convincing basis for planning a large scale infrastructure project

 

[Ianno87]

I'm sure your views om.the insignificance of a £50 million loss to the local economy per annum would come as a great comfort to the people whose loss of jobs and / or income that would represent. An argument based on the amount of this country's GDP squandered on football is hardly a convincing basis for planning a large scale infrastructure project

£50m really is vitually negligible in economic terms in the grand scheme of things - economic noise pretty much, and will probably be more than offset by benefits of other non-HS2 stuff going on anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Do we have a source for the £50m? I couldn’t find it in the KPMG HS2 Regional Economic Impacts report. But I might be looking in the wrong place.

 

[The Ham]

Southampton ? Are you running out of straws to clutch at ?

Are you saying that KPMG, when reaching the conclusion that Liverpool would potentially lose £50 million in GVA per annum once HS2 is complete, forgot to take into account the inprovements HS2 will bring about in services to Liverpool ? Are you really, genuinely, honestly and truly saying that, and keeping a straight face while you do it ?

Funny how everything that everyone connected with HS2 says is infallible, until it undermines the case for HS2, at which point it suddenly becomes the case that HS2 Ltd employs halfwits as consultants

I picked Southampton due to it being a city with a significant port, being broadly the same distance timewise from London as Liverpool once HS2 is built and isn't a direct competitor to Liverpool.

There will be other locations which will have better connections to Liverpool, every better connection will bring benefits. They may not be big, but they will all add up. The point was by picking a location about 1.5 hours from HS2 I was making a point rather than it being the only example.

At 1:40 from London Liverpool could be used to commute from. Now this will result in people being paid for their jobs in London and then spending those earnings in Liverpool. Again the numbers may not be big, but again they all add up.

Do you have a look to the report as often headline figures can be taken out of context, for instance:
- it could be the impact of not having HS2 linking all the way through to Liverpool
- it could be the total loss, but doesn't take into account the total benefits (i.e. it could lose out by £50 million but benefit by £100 million)

 

[NSEFAN]

I'm sure your views om.the insignificance of a £50 million loss to the local economy per annum would come as a great comfort to the people whose loss of jobs and / or income that would represent. An argument based on the amount of this country's GDP squandered on football is hardly a convincing basis for planning a large scale infrastructure project

I still can't understand how improving connectivity to a place would make it poorer? Is it a case of "Manchester has it better so businesses will flock there!", or perhaps "People can just commute away from Liverpool and it'll become a jobless dormitory town"?

 

[B&I]

Interestingly, the HS2 report (by KPMG) into Regional Economic Impacts actually said this...

In particular for the rest of Great Britain (i.e. outside of Greater London and the Phase Two city regions), the forecast productivity gains are significant, even after the effects of business location

Let's unpick this.

The KPMG report did not include the economic impacts on the Liverpool City Region in its headline figures. That alone tells you quite a lot about the amount of thought that went into Liverpool's position when HS2 was being planned. Liverpool was lumped in with 'rest of Great Britain' in the KPMG report.

The actual figures only emerged following a Freedom of Information request, linked to in this article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24589652

As became apparent (only after someone submitted an FoI request - neither HS2 nor KPMG was in a hurry to admit it) Liverpool was among a substantial number of places at risk of economic shrinkage thanks to HS2.

That's what the KPMG report 'actually' said, though I bet you wish it hadn't. Why don't you just admit that you don't care about some places losing out economically due to HS2, rather than trying to misrepresent HS2's own evidence on the subject ?

 

[B&I]

I still can't understand how improving connectivity to a place would make it poorer? Is it a case of "Manchester has it better so businesses will flock there!", or perhaps "People can just commute away from Liverpool and it'll become a jobless dormitory town"?

Both of those, yes. The question is one of relative connectivity. If businesses prefer to base themselves in better-connected places (which is part of the whole rationale for HS2), why would they base themselves in a city with less frequent, slower and less capacious services ?

 

[B&I]

I picked Southampton due to it being a city with a significant port, being broadly the same distance timewise from London as Liverpool once HS2 is built and isn't a direct competitor to Liverpool.

There will be other locations which will have better connections to Liverpool, every better connection will bring benefits. They may not be big, but they will all add up. The point was by picking a location about 1.5 hours from HS2 I was making a point rather than it being the only example.

At 1:40 from London Liverpool could be used to commute from. Now this will result in people being paid for their jobs in London and then spending those earnings in Liverpool. Again the numbers may not be big, but again they all add up.

Do you have a look to the report as often headline figures can be taken out of context, for instance:
- it could be the impact of not having HS2 linking all the way through to Liverpool
- it could be the total loss, but doesn't take into account the total benefits (i.e. it could lose out by £50 million but benefit by £100 million)

The figures appear to be net GVA. Again, KPMG presumably took ibto account all the factors you set out in their analysis - there's 30 pages in the report about their methodology, yet by interesting contrast 1 page of results in the report itself (it took an FoI request to break down that 'rest of Great Britain' figure).

What do you mean by 'it could be the impact of not having HS2 linking all the way through to Liverpool' ? If they've taken that factor into account, they were correct to do so, as, on the basis if how things stand (there being no definitive plan, funding or legislation for 'NPR'), HS2 will indded not be linking the whole way to Liverpool. That's the whole reason for the potential economic disbenefit - it will be at a competitive disadvantage with cities which are linked the whole way to HS2.

 

[B&I]

£50m really is vitually negligible in economic terms in the grand scheme of things - economic noise pretty much, and will probably be more than offset by benefits of other non-HS2 stuff going on anyway.

Again, I'm sure your views on the insignificance of £50 million to the local economy will come aa a great comfort to the people whose income and jobs are affected.

There may well be 'other non-HS2 stuff going on anyway' which will benefit Liverpool's economy. Let's hope there will be, as it would be foolish of us to expect any economic boost from HS2. However, this is a threas about HS2. It's hardly the greatest advertisement for it to say 'well it may damage your local economy, but hopefully something else will make up for it'.

 

[The Ham]

Let's unpick this.

The KPMG report did not include the economic impacts on the Liverpool City Region in its headline figures. That alone tells you quite a lot about the amount of thought that went into Liverpool's position when HS2 was being planned. Liverpool was lumped in with 'rest of Great Britain' in the KPMG report.

The actual figures only emerged following a Freedom of Information request, linked to in this article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24589652

As became apparent (only after someone submitted an FoI request - neither HS2 nor KPMG was in a hurry to admit it) Liverpool was among a substantial number of places at risk of economic shrinkage thanks to HS2.

That's what the KPMG report 'actually' said, though I bet you wish it hadn't. Why don't you just admit that you don't care about some places losing out economically due to HS2, rather than trying to misrepresent HS2's own evidence on the subject ?

A quick read suggests that Liverpool could have a economic impact of between -£50 billion and +£115 billion.

 

[B&I]

My comment wasn't aimed at you. I don't think Bald Rick knew that the HS2 spur to join the WCML south of Wigan will pass within 20 miles of Liverpool city centre. Some sort of link should be a no brainer. I would use the freight line through Warrington to serve the town centre with basically a new HS alignment either side of Warrington. The line will be largely redundant once Fiddlers Ferry power station closes.

Sorry, now I step back and look at your comment again I see what you mean. I thought you were suggesting that I was arguing against any high speed rail line

 

[Bald Rick]

Let's unpick this.

The KPMG report did not include the economic impacts on the Liverpool City Region in its headline figures. That alone tells you quite a lot about the amount of thought that went into Liverpool's position when HS2 was being planned. Liverpool was lumped in with 'rest of Great Britain' in the KPMG report.

The actual figures only emerged following a Freedom of Information request, linked to in this article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24589652

As became apparent (only after someone submitted an FoI request - neither HS2 nor KPMG was in a hurry to admit it) Liverpool was among a substantial number of places at risk of economic shrinkage thanks to HS2.

That's what the KPMG report 'actually' said, though I bet you wish it hadn't. Why don't you just admit that you don't care about some places losing out economically due to HS2, rather than trying to misrepresent HS2's own evidence on the subject ?

I am not trying to misrepresent anything. And of course I care. As I, and others have said, HS2 (or any transport infrastructure project for that matter) can not serve everywhere. I’m willing to bet the city of my roots potentially loses out too. But I know that HS2 will benefit the wider region and the country, and I’m willing to take that risk. You’re not, fair enough. But the decision makers have taken the bigger picture.

Both of those, yes. The question is one of relative connectivity. If businesses prefer to base themselves in better-connected places (which is part of the whole rationale for HS2), why would they base themselves in a city with less frequent, slower and less capacious services ?

You might have missed the Generalised journey time point I made above. In the transport markets HS2 will serve, the relative connectivity of Liverpool compared to Manchester will almost certainly improve post HS2. In which case businesses would be more likely to base themselves in Liverpool than they are today.

 

[B&I]

A quick read suggests that Liverpool could have a economic impact of between -£50 billion and +£115 billion.

This is why I have repeatedly referred to a risk of economic shrinkage, rather than a certainty. It's a risk that I don't think is worth taking, when at relatively low cost (compared to the overall project) it could be eliminated by building a proper high speed line to the city.

Rhetorically, do you think that is going to persuade many Liverpolitans to support HS2 ? 'Support this £50 bn infrastructure project which might boost your economy, but might also substantially damage it'. That's a sort of a Paddy Power approach to economic development.

That potential GVA uplift is the smallest of any city region 'served' by HS2.

 

[B&I]

I am not trying to misrepresent anything. And of course I care. As I, and others have said, HS2 (or any transport infrastructure project for that matter) can not serve everywhere. I’m willing to bet the city of my roots potentially loses out too. But I know that HS2 will benefit the wider region and the country, and I’m willing to take that risk. You’re not, fair enough. But the decision makers have taken the bigger picture.




You might have missed the Generalised journey time point I made above. In the transport markets HS2 will serve, the relative connectivity of Liverpool compared to Manchester will almost certainly improve post HS2. In which case businesses would be more likely to base themselves in Liverpool than they are today.

At present, Manchester has more frequent services, but the journey times are similar. Post-HS2, Manhester will be 30 mins closer to London (still with more frequent journeys(, and 45 mins closer to Birmingham, per leg of journey. Manchester will have (very roughly) 6 times more seats per hour to London, and 5 times more seats per hour to Birmingham, than Liverpool.

KPMG's methodology has presumably taken those factors into account and still established that Liverpool is at risk of economic shrinkage.

I'm not massivly impressed by what the 'decision makers' think. The 'decision makers' have delivered us a decade of economic stagnation and wage repression, some of the highest levels of inequality in the developed world, colossal regional disparities in economic performance, austerity, the collapse of national and local public services, and the sort of bitterly divided and unhappy country which has become desperate enough to vote for an economic suicide pact like Brexit. The 'decision makers' are usually insulated by their wealth and privilege from the real world consequences of their decisions.

 

[quantinghome]

'So there' is not the most convincing argument I've heard in favour of a £50 bn infrastructure project

That's because it wasn't intended to be an argument in favour of HS2. It was a comment on the general pointlessness of this 'discussion'. We've all heard your argument, repeated over and over again. Posting the same comments endlessly on a forum frequented by a select bunch of rail enthusiasts won't stop HS2, and it certainly doesn't bring anything new or interesting to discuss. Seriously, what is the point?

 

[Ianno87]

Again, I'm sure your views on the insignificance of £50 million to the local economy will come aa a great comfort to the people whose income and jobs are affected.

There may well be 'other non-HS2 stuff going on anyway' which will benefit Liverpool's economy. Let's hope there will be, as it would be foolish of us to expect any economic boost from HS2. However, this is a threas about HS2. It's hardly the greatest advertisement for it to say 'well it may damage your local economy, but hopefully something else will make up for it'.

Not what I'm saying at all. The Economic forecasts that go behind these things are only that - forecasts, based on a number of assumptions of what the macro economy will be like in 20+ years time. -£50m could quite easily disappear in practice if these assumptions prove to be wrong. In scale terms, it's little more than a rounding error (to put it bluntly).

This is why I have repeatedly referred to a risk of economic shrinkage, rather than a certainty. It's a risk that I don't think is worth taking, when at relatively low cost (compared to the overall project) it could be eliminated by building a proper high speed line to the city.

Rhetorically, do you think that is going to persuade many Liverpolitans to support HS2 ? 'Support this £50 bn infrastructure project which might boost your economy, but might also substantially damage it'. That's a sort of a Paddy Power approach to economic development.

That potential GVA uplift is the smallest of any city region 'served' by HS2.

You could flip that argument on its head; you might say that the extra cost of a Liverpool link is £x bn pounds, and there is a risk that the resulting net UK GVA uplift needed to cover this isn't realised in practice - i.e. the UK economy becomes worse off overall than what would have been the case.

(FYI I don't think this would be the case, since a Liverpool link would also bring trans-North connectivity benefits).

Anyway, you don't need to try hard to convince Merseyside folk that 'by the way you'll get an extra train an hour to London most of the day, and about 30 minutes quicker too' is a good thing. And HS2 Phasees 1 and 2A/B are a necessary stepping stone to an eventual link into Liverpool itself (albeit one that is not committed yet). It is going in the right direction for you!

 

[B&I]

That's because it wasn't intended to be an argument in favour of HS2. It was a comment on the general pointlessness of this 'discussion'. We've all heard your argument, repeated over and over again. Posting the same comments endlessly on a forum frequented by a select bunch of rail enthusiasts won't stop HS2, and it certainly doesn't bring anything new or interesting to discuss. Seriously, what is the point?

The clue is in the word 'discussion'. If you find the subject boring, why contribute to the thread ?

I am fully aware when I discuss things on the internet that it's just another reflection of my almost complete powerlessness as an individual citizen. However, threads like these are a fascinating insight into the psychology of people I don't agree with. It's also genuine fun to see the arguments people present for why the occupants of a metropolitan area at risk of substabtial economic damage by HS2 should nonetheless support the project

 

[quantinghome]

However, threads like these are a fascinating insight into the psychology of people I don't agree with.

At least on that we can agree!

 

[B&I]

Not what I'm saying at all. The Economic forecasts that go behind these things are only that - forecasts, based on a number of assumptions of what the macro economy will be like in 20+ years time. -£50m could quite easily disappear in practice if these assumptions prove to be wrong. In scale terms, it's little more than a rounding error (to put it bluntly).



You could flip that argument on its head; you might say that the extra cost of a Liverpool link is £x bn pounds, and there is a risk that the resulting net UK GVA uplift needed to cover this isn't realised in practice - i.e. the UK economy becomes worse off overall than what would have been the case.

(FYI I don't think this would be the case, since a Liverpool link would also bring trans-North connectivity benefits).

Anyway, you don't need to try hard to convince Merseyside folk that 'by the way you'll get an extra train an hour to London most of the day, and about 30 minutes quicker too' is a good thing. And HS2 Phasees 1 and 2A/B are a necessary stepping stone to an eventual link into Liverpool itself (albeit one that is not committed yet). It is going in the right direction for you!

So, if you don't think that the extra cost of a high speed line to Liverpool would outweigh the economic benefits it would bring, why did you bother introducing it as a concept ?

Do you think 'Merseysiders', whatever they are, would be dancing in the streets in favour of HS2, if you told them that HS2's own consultants have pointed out that their local economy is at risk of shrinkage if HS2 goes ahead as planned ?

This thread is settling into a pattern. An HS2 supporter comes forward to dispute the figures suggested by KPMG, HS2's own consultants, about its economic impact on Liverpool, suggest that Liverpool must benefit overall because of reduced journey times to London and greater frequency, and invites me to look forward to the sunny future of a high speed line to Liverpool as part of 'NPR'. I point out that there is no reason to doubt KPMG's figures or evidence to contradict them; that the HS2 supporter in question is ignoring the importance of relative connectivity and attractiveness to investment, and that real world economic effects are much more important than faster and more freuqent trains; and that there is no plan, funding or legislation in place for 'NPR'. Said HS2 supporter fails to refute these arguments. Another HS2 supporter then comes forward and makes exactly the same arguments. It is like discussing matters with a 3 line program in BBC Basic

 

[NSEFAN]

Both of those, yes. The question is one of relative connectivity. If businesses prefer to base themselves in better-connected places (which is part of the whole rationale for HS2), why would they base themselves in a city with less frequent, slower and less capacious services ?

Connectivity to London or Birmingham is important but it's not the only factor. All the people still living in and around Liverpool and Merseyside will still be there, with demand for employment as well as goods & services. There's limited space in the UK (even outside London & Southeast) and with a growing population I just find it hard to believe that economic activity or population will decrease by any significant in Liverpool.

 

[The Ham]

This is why I have repeatedly referred to a risk of economic shrinkage, rather than a certainty. It's a risk that I don't think is worth taking, when at relatively low cost (compared to the overall project) it could be eliminated by building a proper high speed line to the city.

Rhetorically, do you think that is going to persuade many Liverpolitans to support HS2 ? 'Support this £50 bn infrastructure project which might boost your economy, but might also substantially damage it'. That's a sort of a Paddy Power approach to economic development.

That potential GVA uplift is the smallest of any city region 'served' by HS2.

If you remove the top 15% of each range, as the risk of that happening it's fairly small due you end up with a range of -£25 million to +£90 million.

In fact to get to a range of £0 to +£50million you are in the middle 40% (you've lost the top and bottom 30%).

To me that would suggest that the level of risk of it being harmful (to any extent) to Liverpool is low and of significant harm (given its something like a maximum of -0.7% of the economy) is very low.

My reading of the figures is that it is a low output change is the one which results in the +£115 million.