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

[johnnychips]

Ianno87 said, “I’m not Manchester based...I support the principle of a high-speed connection to Liverpool”

B&I said, “So you, a Manchester-based poster, are opposed...”

Eh?

 

[Ianno87]

Ianno87 said, “I’m not Manchester based...I support the principle of a high-speed connection to Liverpool”

B&I said, “So you, a Manchester-based poster, are opposed...”

Eh?

Edited: Read post I'm quoting properly first!

For context:
I'm posting as somebody who naturally has more of an allegience to Manchester (where I grew up and still have a close family connection) than Liverpool.

 

[Ianno87]

Isn't speculation fun ? We could still be sitting here in 2033 bandying about justifications for not building a high speed line to Liverpool. Its shrinking economy perhaps being one of them.

Until there is any evidence that 'NPR' is more than a bit of idle chatter, to be tossed aside as casually as platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly, or electrification to Sheffield, I'll stick to the facts as they currently are, thanks

The reality is that NPR in development terms is where HS2 was nearly a decade ago, simply as it got going nearly 10 years later.

It makes no sense to put the brakes on HS2 now and as a direct consequence delay the eventual completion of a Liverpool spur, when we could carry on developing and delivering HS2 Phase 2B as planned, ready to bolt on a Liverpool spur when suitably developed.

Trying to add Liverpool to HS2 Phase 2B now will just have the effect of delaying HS2 eventually reaching Liverpool (in my view) compared to other strategies.

So, you, a Manchester-based poster, are opposed to a high speed line being built to.Liverpool as part of HS2, which is consistent with what I said before

No, re-read what I wrote. I said *some* project, which was not excluding HS2. If it *were* possible to get it included within HS2 without making HS2 unaffordable or prolonging/jeopordising the delivery of the whole scheme, fine. But I don't believe this is at all realistic.

 

[johnnychips]

Convenient you chopped the "used to be" out of the post in that quote to support whatever the point you're trying to make is.

I'm posting as somebody who naturally has more of an allegience to Manchester (where I grew up and still have a close family connection) than Liverpool.

I was actually pointing out the discrepancy in the reply to your post to what you actually said! The points you have made are very reasonable.

 

[Ianno87]

I was actually pointing out the inconsistency in the reply to your post! The points you have made are very reasonable.

D'oh! Yes - sorry!

 

[si404]

I personally think that Sheffield's plan has backfired.

I entirely agree.

But the majority of people I've spoken to in Sheffield seem happy about that.

Yes - this the point. The Steel City has behaved positively to HS2, while also trying to get more from it, whereas Liverpool's lobbyists (as opposed to official representatives) have been constantly negative about the project and its prospects for Liverpool - even when decisions made has been ones that have been positive to Liverpool - because it's not the perfect scheme for them. It's almost as if they are trying to make that 5-year-old, and superceded, KMPG report's prediction of a possible (tiny) hit to the city's economy a reality!

Liverpolitans have been complaining about HS2 since 5 years before the route was announced

Yep. Give or take some rounding. The initial preferred route was published a few years after after the route concept was made public.

OK, it might just have been the wanabee-Liverpudlian known unaffectionately as 'Mad John' back in late '08 (when the scheme was rumour and all), but here's a quote from a route concept report in February 2010 that definitely raised heckles from the Merseyside area:

11.8.8 Extending HS2 from the West Midlands to Manchester is estimated to bring reductions in journey times from London to Manchester of 20 minutes on top of what is already achieved on Day One. London based hybrid services to Scotland, Preston and Liverpool save another 13 minutes over the Day One service specification. The only other change to the Day One specification is the addition of three trains per hour connecting Birmingham to Manchester, taking 54 minutes to complete the journey.​

Those 7 minutes extra saving, dedicated tracks, and the direct Birmingham trains for Manchester led to the same debate we're having 8.5 years later, and for the umpty-umpth time.

It was the same push-business-away line of 'HS2 won't serve Liverpool and it would be bad for Liverpool if built' nonsense. Thankfully, the official bodies, Chamber-of-Commerce, and the like have been a lot less negative, or 'it would be bad for Liverpool if built' would certainly be a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it is actively saying 'invest in other cities'.

 

[The Planner]

As this thread seems to be barreling along at a rate of notes and Ive not seen or missed it, is this £50 million dent in Liverpool immediate, over the life of HS2 or over a different period?

 

[PR1Berske]

This thread is so much fun.

 

[B&I]

Edited: Read post I'm quoting properly first!

For context:
I'm posting as somebody who naturally has more of an allegience to Manchester (where I grew up and still have a close family connection) than Liverpool.

Sorry, my misreading. In my defence I was at the time stuck on a busy 185 with a 'child' (small demon more like) yelling the place down because he wasn't been given his iPad. Irrefutable evidence of the need for 400 m trains across the north, methinks

 

[B&I]

The reality is that NPR in development terms is where HS2 was nearly a decade ago, simply as it got going nearly 10 years later.

It makes no sense to put the brakes on HS2 now and as a direct consequence delay the eventual completion of a Liverpool spur, when we could carry on developing and delivering HS2 Phase 2B as planned, ready to bolt on a Liverpool spur when suitably developed.

Trying to add Liverpool to HS2 Phase 2B now will just have the effect of delaying HS2 eventually reaching Liverpool (in my view) compared to other strategies.



No, re-read what I wrote. I said *some* project, which was not excluding HS2. If it *were* possible to get it included within HS2 without making HS2 unaffordable or prolonging/jeopordising the delivery of the whole scheme, fine. But I don't believe this is at all realistic.

I don't want to descend into semantics, but unless if asked to choose at this moment in time your choice would be a high apees line to Liverpool as part of HS2, then you're not in favour of it.

And again to try to avoid descending into semantics, I don't mind what label is attached to any high speed line to Liverpool, or what project it might officially form part of. If 'NPR' had a definitive plan, if funding was in place, and it was due for completion by 2033, that would allay my concerns about Liverpool's position. But we're not at that point. Even if you're right, and we're working towards it, on your time scale putting 'NPR' 10 years behind HS2, it will not be opening until 2043 (everything else being equal). That's enough time to generate substantial economic effects

 

[AM9]

... No-one in Liverpool has said Manchester shouldn't be provided with a high speed line. ...

That may be true for this thread, but as you have said several times, there are (about) 2 million people in Liverpool (+ Chester,the Wirral,Wigan et al) and I'd imagine that some would prefer Manchester to not have the line provided.

... Can you provide me with an example of any of Manchester's civic leaders (apart from Andy Burnham), or even any Manchester-based posters on here (with the exception of Chester1) supporting a high speed line being built to Liverpool as part of HS2 ?

No, I have never lived in either Liverpool or Manchester but I have visited them both in the last ten years. I'm not interested in any of their politicians though.

 

[B&I]

I entirely agree.
Yes - this the point. The Steel City has behaved positively to HS2, while also trying to get more from it, whereas Liverpool's lobbyists (as opposed to official representatives) have been constantly negative about the project and its prospects for Liverpool - even when decisions made has been ones that have been positive to Liverpool - because it's not the perfect scheme for them. It's almost as if they are trying to make that 5-year-old, and superceded, KMPG report's prediction of a possible (tiny) hit to the city's economy a reality!

Yep. Give or take some rounding. The initial preferred route was published a few years after after the route concept was made public.

OK, it might just have been the wanabee-Liverpudlian known unaffectionately as 'Mad John' back in late '08 (when the scheme was rumour and all), but here's a quote from a route concept report in February 2010 that definitely raised heckles from the Merseyside area:

11.8.8 Extending HS2 from the West Midlands to Manchester is estimated to bring reductions in journey times from London to Manchester of 20 minutes on top of what is already achieved on Day One. London based hybrid services to Scotland, Preston and Liverpool save another 13 minutes over the Day One service specification. The only other change to the Day One specification is the addition of three trains per hour connecting Birmingham to Manchester, taking 54 minutes to complete the journey.​

Those 7 minutes extra saving, dedicated tracks, and the direct Birmingham trains for Manchester led to the same debate we're having 8.5 years later, and for the umpty-umpth time.

It was the same push-business-away line of 'HS2 won't serve Liverpool and it would be bad for Liverpool if built' nonsense. Thankfully, the official bodies, Chamber-of-Commerce, and the like have been a lot less negative, or 'it would be bad for Liverpool if built' would certainly be a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it is actively saying 'invest in other cities'.

What has superceded the KPMG report ? I know you'd like to pretend it doesn't exist, but thay doesn't prevent it from being the most recent evidence on the subject.

What 'positive developments' have there been for Liverpool re HS2 ? Well, I suppose it's now been conceded that the Liverpool classic compatibles should join HS2 at Crewe, rather than Stafford. So our shorter trains will now be filled up with one intermediate station's worth if passengers rather than two, and the London journey time will be reduced by 30 mins per leg rather than 10. Shall I prostate myself now at the feet of the great HS2 Ltd for its munificence, or shall I.continue to think the unworthy thought, ungrateful dog that I am, that the original, even worse plan waa a softening-up exercise dor what we are getting ?

What really gets me is that people like you seem to expect Liverpolitans not just to put up with HS2 provision which risks shrinking our economy, but to welcome it. I think the correct phrase for that is 'gaslighting'. Ubfortunately, it seemed to work with the city's supine placeholder MPs, and with the tub of lard who has served as the city mayor thesw last few years, but luckily our new.metro.mayor seems a hell of a lot more on the ball.

Finally, let's examine your suggestion that any negative economic effect Liverpool will suffer is the result of people complaining online about the inadequacy of what HS2 proposes for it. Is that a serious comment, or another of the 'Thick of It'-type comedy pronouncements which litter this thread ? I didn't see 'negative comments on obscure webforums' feature anywhere in KPMG's methodology when they concluded that Liverpool was at risk of a shrinking economy, post-HS2

 

[B&I]

As this thread seems to be barreling along at a rate of notes and Ive not seen or missed it, is this £50 million dent in Liverpool immediate, over the life of HS2 or over a different period?

Per annum from the completion date of HS2

 

[B&I]

As this thread seems to be barreling along at a rate of notes and Ive not seen or missed it, is this £50 million dent in Liverpool immediate, over the life of HS2 or over a different period?

Isn't it ? The arguments in favour of HS2 as is are like water in an emptying sink - going round and round in circles, getting lower each time they go round, and eventually disappearing into gurgles

 

[Bald Rick]

As this thread seems to be barreling along at a rate of notes and Ive not seen or missed it, is this £50 million dent in Liverpool immediate, over the life of HS2 or over a different period?

It’s fun isn’t it? The £50m quoted was apparently assessed by KPMG, but not specifically mentioned in their report for HS2 on regional economic impacts, link below. Evidently there was an FOI that provided the £50m value - a per annum value - but we haven’t seen that actual evidence yet. I don’t doubt it exists.
http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/HS2 Regional Economic Impacts.pdf

The economy of the Liverpool City Region in 2016 was worth nearly £31bn pa. As such £50m pa represents roughly 0.16% of that economy, rather than the 0.7% quoted by others above.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gros.../regionalgrossvalueaddedbalanceduk/1998to2016

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't want to descend into semantics, but unless if asked to choose at this moment in time your choice would be a high apees line to Liverpool as part of HS2, then you're not in favour of it.

And again to try to avoid descending into semantics, I don't mind what label is attached to any high speed line to Liverpool, or what project it might officially form part of. If 'NPR' had a definitive plan, if funding was in place, and it was due for completion by 2033, that would allay my concerns about Liverpool's position. But we're not at that point. Even if you're right, and we're working towards it, on your time scale putting 'NPR' 10 years behind HS2, it will not be opening until 2043 (everything else being equal). That's enough time to generate substantial economic effects

As others have said, NPR is several years behind HS2 in development terms. The first study papers on what is now HS2 were written 13 years ago, whilst NPR is still very much in the early study phase. However it can catch up. Nevertheless I’d bet my mortgage that a new line from Liverpool to HS2 and on to Manchester happens. I gather there are a number of options. I was interested to see the delay in the hybrid bill for Phase 2b of HS2, and wouldn’t be surprised if this was (at least in part) to allow for extra time to work out how the Liverpool - Manchester Line ties in.

I also suspect that depending on the option chosen, it can be built rather quickly. Albeit if it means a new underground station in Liverpool as reported elsewhere, that will take time.

 

[B&I]

It’s fun isn’t it? The £50m quoted was apparently assessed by KPMG, but not specifically mentioned in their report for HS2 on regions” economic impacts, link below. Evidently there was an FOI that provided the £50m value - a per annum value - but we haven’t seen that actual evidence yet. I don’t doubt it exists.
http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/HS2 Regional Economic Impacts.pdf

The economy of the Liverpool City Region in 2016 was worth nearly £31bn pa. As such £50m pa represents roughly 0.16% of that economy, rather than the 0.7% quoted by others above.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gros.../regionalgrossvalueaddedbalanceduk/1998to2016

I've already posted this, but since you're making such an extra special effort to undermine HS2's own consultants I'll post it again (table containing specific figures in link at end):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24589652

That £50 m is not a one-off figure. It is what Liverpool's economy is at risk of shrinking by per annum. Ok, it would take 620 years to wipe out its entire GVA, but it's hardly the correct direction of travel.

For perhaps the 20th time, I'll put these questions:
1. Why do you consider it acceptable for HS2, a project which is supposed to be about rebalancing the economy, to create a risk of economic shrinkage to a city it is meant to be serving ?
2. If your income or job was under threat as a result of shrinking economic output, would you be so comfortable about it happening ?

 

[B&I]

As others have said, NPR is several years behind HS2 in development terms. The first study papers on what is now HS2 were written 13 years ago, whilst NPR is still very much in the early study phase. However it can catch up. Nevertheless I’d bet my mortgage that a new line from Liverpool to HS2 and on to Manchester happens. I gather there are a number of options. I was interested to see the delay in the hybrid bill for Phase 2b of HS2, and wouldn’t be surprised if this was (at least in part) to allow for extra time to work out how the Liverpool - Manchester Line ties in.

I also suspect that depending on the option chosen, it can be built rather quickly. Albeit if it means a new underground station in Liverpool as reported elsewhere, that will take time.

Someone else who's fervently against Liverpool being included properly within HS2, yet is full of reassurances about it being joined in later, by some project which has no definitive plan, no enabling legislation and no funding. If 'NPR' is such a nailed-on certainty, why has HS2 reached the phase it has without taking it properly into account ? Why, according to the Manchester (that's Manchester, not Liverpool) forum on Skyscrapercity, are rumours circulating that HS2 Ltd are opposing even passive provision being made for 'NPR' ?

Again, I'll stick to the current facts if you don't mind, and leave speculation to the speculation sub-forum.

Would anybody else like to repeat the same arguments in favour of HS2 over and over again ? It's just I'm going to bed soon

 

[Ianno87]

I've already posted this, but since you're making such an extra special effort to undermine HS2's own consultants I'll post it again (table containing specific figures in link at end):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24589652

That £50 m is not a one-off figure. It is what Liverpool's economy is at risk of shrinking by per annum. Ok, it would take 620 years to wipe out its entire GVA, but it's hardly the correct direction of travel.

For perhaps the 20th time, I'll put these questions:
1. Why do you consider it acceptable for HS2, a project which is supposed to be about rebalancing the economy, to create a risk of economic shrinkage to a city it is meant to be serving ?
2. If your income or job was under threat as a result of shrinking economic output, would you be so comfortable about it happening ?

My answers:

1. It will help rebalance the economy to the north, e.g. job creation around Airport City in Manchester
2. Look for one of the new job opportunities created in Manchester instead, and commute 30 miles, or the aggoleratiom in the wider region associated with it

 

[Ianno87]

Again, I'll stick to the current facts if you don't mind, and leave speculation to the speculation sub-forum.

Correction: Fact. One figure from one end of one range in one report done 5 years ago that has been supserseded.

I don't want to descend into semantics, but unless if asked to choose at this moment in time your choice would be a high apees line to Liverpool as part of HS2, then you're not in favour of it.

And again to try to avoid descending into semantics, I don't mind what label is attached to any high speed line to Liverpool, or what project it might officially form part of. If 'NPR' had a definitive plan, if funding was in place, and it was due for completion by 2033, that would allay my concerns about Liverpool's position. But we're not at that point. Even if you're right, and we're working towards it, on your time scale putting 'NPR' 10 years behind HS2, it will not be opening until 2043 (everything else being equal). That's enough time to generate substantial economic effects

No, but by 2033, a further stage to Liverpool due in c.2043 would be looking increasingly likely or even committed. So that would start to generate economic activity in expectation of the arrival of a high speed connection, whereas your "£50 million" figure is forecast based on no such activity as there is no expectation of high speed infrastructure into Liverpool to generate this additional activity. So "£50m" has no relevance to this scenario.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've already posted this, but since you're making such an extra special effort to undermine HS2's own consultants I'll post it again (table containing specific figures in link at end):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24589652

That £50 m is not a one-off figure. It is what Liverpool's economy is at risk of shrinking by per annum. Ok, it would take 620 years to wipe out its entire GVA, but it's hardly the correct direction of travel.

For perhaps the 20th time, I'll put these questions:
1. Why do you consider it acceptable for HS2, a project which is supposed to be about rebalancing the economy, to create a risk of economic shrinkage to a city it is meant to be serving ?
2. If your income or job was under threat as a result of shrinking economic output, would you be so comfortable about it happening ?

I think I made it clear it was a per annum figure. Thank you for posting the BBC link again, I missed the link within the link.

Happily, it’s good news!

The numbers in the FOI show that the £50m pa worsenment is a worst case. However the best case is a £114m pa improvement. So on balance, an improvement is more likely, with a mid point of a £32m pa positive benefit. Great news for Liverpool!

Even better, those figures are just for Liverpool itself. The Liverpool City Region - the top tier local authority for the area which covers the Metropolitan area of Liverpool, and the area represented by the Metro Mayor of Liverpool City Region (Steve Rotherham) - consists of the boroughs of Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton, St Helens and Wirral. With an estimated population of just over 1.5million http://www.liverpoolcityregion.uk/liverpool-population-statistics-for-the-city-region.html it is only slightly smaller than the Newcastle metropolitan area and South Hampshire metropolitan area, and thus a very important centre of economic activity for the U.K.

The numbers released by the FOI show that the worst case effect of HS2 on the Liverpool City Region is a net benefit of £100m pa. Best case is over £300m pa, which represents a 1% boost to the city region economy. Mid point is over £200m pa.

Personally I’m delighted.

To answer the questions:

1) there’s a (much) greater chance of the economy increasing than decreasing, indeed worst case shows the City Region benefiting to the tune of about £60 per person per year.
2) yes I would, as others in the region and nation would benefit, and there would be opportunity elsewhere that I could aim for. I’m like that.

 

[Bald Rick]

That £50 m is not a one-off figure. It is what Liverpool's economy is at risk of shrinking by per annum. Ok, it would take 620 years to wipe out its entire GVA, but it's hardly the correct direction of travel.

It’s not a one off figure, but neither is it cumulative year on year. Same applies to the net benefit that is the more likely case.

Someone else who's fervently against Liverpool being included properly within HS2, yet is full of reassurances about it being joined in later, by some project which has no definitive plan, no enabling legislation and no funding. If 'NPR' is such a nailed-on certainty, why has HS2 reached the phase it has without taking it properly into account ? Why, according to the Manchester (that's Manchester, not Liverpool) forum on Skyscrapercity, are rumours circulating that HS2 Ltd are opposing even passive provision being made for 'NPR' ?

Again, I'll stick to the current facts if you don't mind, and leave speculation to the speculation sub-forum.

Firstly, I think I’ve made it clear that I think Liverpool will be joined to the high speed network. I am absolutely not fervently against.

Second, as explained previously, NPR is several years behind HS2 in the development process. HS2 couldn’t take NPR into account when the route corridor decisions were taken, simply because the latter didn’t exist. But the consent process for HS2 Phase 2b has now been delayed a year, which gives NPR a chance to catch up.

Third, I am pleased you prefer facts (it is the only way to conduct sensible discussion) and then smiled when you quoted rumours from an internet forum in the previous sentence as evidence.

 

[urbophile]

I guess that the "Meadowhall" equivalent for Liverpool would have been a station in Wigan (which is, after all, part of Liverpool's Metropolitan area).

I know those tables quoted above include Wigan in Liverpool's orbit rather than Manchester's, which is strange because it is actually in Greater Manchester. Even stranger is the idea that a station in Wigan could serve Liverpool in the same way as Meadowhall serves Sheffield. It's miles away and at least 30 minutes on a fast train; usually 3/4 hour.

 

[B&I]

I know those tables quoted above include Wigan in Liverpool's orbit rather than Manchester's, which is strange because it is actually in Greater Manchester. Even stranger is the idea that a station in Wigan could serve Liverpool in the same way as Meadowhall serves Sheffield. It's miles away and at least 30 minutes on a fast train; usually 3/4 hour.

This is the sort of really really really odd thinking that we have to contend with when HS2 is debated, and in particular when it is debated in connection with Liverpool. It's as if they think Liverpolitans deserve second-class logic, along with second-class train services

 

[B&I]

I think I made it clear it was a per annum figure. Thank you for posting the BBC link again, I missed the link within the link.

Happily, it’s good news!

The numbers in the FOI show that the £50m pa worsenment is a worst case. However the best case is a £114m pa improvement. So on balance, an improvement is more likely, with a mid point of a £32m pa positive benefit. Great news for Liverpool!

Even better, those figures are just for Liverpool itself. The Liverpool City Region - the top tier local authority for the area which covers the Metropolitan area of Liverpool, and the area represented by the Metro Mayor of Liverpool City Region (Steve Rotherham) - consists of the boroughs of Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton, St Helens and Wirral. With an estimated population of just over 1.5million http://www.liverpoolcityregion.uk/liverpool-population-statistics-for-the-city-region.html it is only slightly smaller than the Newcastle metropolitan area and South Hampshire metropolitan area, and thus a very important centre of economic activity for the U.K.

The numbers released by the FOI show that the worst case effect of HS2 on the Liverpool City Region is a net benefit of £100m pa. Best case is over £300m pa, which represents a 1% boost to the city region economy. Mid point is over £200m pa.

Personally I’m delighted.

To answer the questions:

1) there’s a (much) greater chance of the economy increasing than decreasing, indeed worst case shows the City Region benefiting to the tune of about £60 per person per year.
2) yes I would, as others in the region and nation would benefit, and there would be opportunity elsewhere that I could aim for. I’m like that.

Ah, that's ok then, it's only c 470,000 people whose jobs and income are at risk. So as to avoid comparing apples with zebra crossings, would you like to find out the size of the city of Liverpool's economy, tell us by what percentage it will shrink as a result of a loss of £50 m each year, and then remind us that people losing their jobs and income, including (you claim) you, don't matter to you ?

I'm clearly wasting my breath trying to explain why the risk of economic shrinkage, even if there is a possibility of economic benefit, might make a project unattractive to people who might be detrimentally affected by that. If you are telling the truth, and you would honestly be happy to lose your job because someone told you it was necessary for national economic growth, you cannot inhabit the same psychological world as most people

 

[B&I]

It’s not a one off figure, but neither is it cumulative year on year. Same applies to the net benefit that is the more likely case.



Firstly, I think I’ve made it clear that I think Liverpool will be joined to the high speed network. I am absolutely not fervently against.

Second, as explained previously, NPR is several years behind HS2 in the development process. HS2 couldn’t take NPR into account when the route corridor decisions were taken, simply because the latter didn’t exist. But the consent process for HS2 Phase 2b has now been delayed a year, which gives NPR a chance to catch up.

Third, I am pleased you prefer facts (it is the only way to conduct sensible discussion) and then smiled when you quoted rumours from an internet forum in the previous sentence as evidence.

You're clearly not a great fan of evidence either, if you think that your opinion on whether or not 'NPR' is likely to be built is particularly persuasive. I have difficulty trusting the judgment of someone who claims he'd be happy to lose his job if he thought it benefitted the national economy

 

[Bald Rick]

Ah, that's ok then, it's only c 470,000 people whose jobs and income are at risk. So as to avoid comparing apples with zebra crossings, would you like to find out the size of the city of Liverpool's economy, tell us by what percentage it will shrink as a result of a loss of £50 m each year, and then remind us that people losing their jobs and income, including (you claim) you, don't matter to you ?

I'm clearly wasting my breath trying to explain why the risk of economic shrinkage, even if there is a possibility of economic benefit, might make a project unattractive to people who might be detrimentally affected by that. If you are telling the truth, and you would honestly be happy to lose your job because someone told you it was necessary for national economic growth, you cannot inhabit the same psychological world as most people

In almost every infrastructure project there are winners and losers. One of the principles of a functioning society is that government decides for the benefit of society as a whole, whilst providing a safety net for those at a disadvantage. Note that government works on several geographical levels.

A quick google reveals that the Liverpool City economy is worth around £11bn pa.

The report you have quite rightly been at pains to use as evidence does estimate that Liverpool City could suffer, at worst, a £50m pa hit (not cumulative) to its economy, ie -0.5%. The report also estimates that, at best, it could enjoy a £114m boost to the economy, ie +1.1% (the FOI report states this as 1.2%). There must be a range of outcomes between these two extremes. On balance, it is therefore clear that a positive outcome is more likely. Surely you must agree that these facts (that, to be fair, you provided to this discussion) demonstrate that it is more likely than not that Liverpool benefits from HS2? If you don’t agree, and that is of course your decision, why not?

But, and this is a big but, Liverpool City is but one part of Liverpool City Region, which is shown to gain even in the worst case. The transport around the region is, frankly, pretty good compared to some other metropolitan areas, and that enables a relatively mobile workforce. So whilst Liverpool might lose out (albeit, as the dense you linked to states, it is more likely to gain), other parts of the city region will gain even under the worst case. If the worst case happens, and as a result people do lose jobs and/or income in Liverpool City, by the same logic in the worst case there will be proportionally more jobs and higher income available very close by. Is this not an opportunity for the people of Liverpool? If not, why?

I didn’t say I would be happy to lose my job if it was necessary for National economic growth. You asked:

2. If your income or job was under threat as a result of shrinking economic output, would you be so comfortable about it happening ?

My answer is the same. If my income or job was under threat as a result of shrinking economic output related clearly I would be concerned. However if, (as in this discussion) it was due to a change in local circumstances in the context of an overall benefit to the region I lived in and the national economy, then yes, I would be happy because a) there would be bigger and better opportunities elsewhere (and nearby) which I could go and find, and b) other people nearby would be better off too. I’m not in this society just for me. That’s what society is about.

 

[B&I]

In almost every infrastructure project there are winners and losers. One of the principles of a functioning society is that government decides for the benefit of society as a whole, whilst providing a safety net for those at a disadvantage. Note that government works on several geographical levels.

A quick google reveals that the Liverpool City economy is worth around £11bn pa.

The report you have quite rightly been at pains to use as evidence does estimate that Liverpool City could suffer, at worst, a £50m pa hit (not cumulative) to its economy, ie -0.5%. The report also estimates that, at best, it could enjoy a £114m boost to the economy, ie +1.1% (the FOI report states this as 1.2%). There must be a range of outcomes between these two extremes. On balance, it is therefore clear that a positive outcome is more likely. Surely you must agree that these facts (that, to be fair, you provided to this discussion) demonstrate that it is more likely than not that Liverpool benefits from HS2? If you don’t agree, and that is of course your decision, why not?

But, and this is a big but, Liverpool City is but one part of Liverpool City Region, which is shown to gain even in the worst case. The transport around the region is, frankly, pretty good compared to some other metropolitan areas, and that enables a relatively mobile workforce. So whilst Liverpool might lose out (albeit, as the dense you linked to states, it is more likely to gain), other parts of the city region will gain even under the worst case. If the worst case happens, and as a result people do lose jobs and/or income in Liverpool City, by the same logic in the worst case there will be proportionally more jobs and higher income available very close by. Is this not an opportunity for the people of Liverpool? If not, why?

I didn’t say I would be happy to lose my job if it was necessary for National economic growth. You asked:


My answer is the same. If my income or job was under threat as a result of shrinking economic output related clearly I would be concerned. However if, (as in this discussion) it was due to a change in local circumstances in the context of an overall benefit to the region I lived in and the national economy, then yes, I would be happy because a) there would be bigger and better opportunities elsewhere (and nearby) which I could go and find, and b) other people nearby would be better off too. I’m not in this society just for me. That’s what society is about.

I'm tired of a 'society' based on winners and losers. This approach is the main reason why so much of Britain is an economic disaster area. I don't accept that it has to be this way. I don't accept that Liverpool has to be put at risk of suffering economic shrinkage (and you can't deny that risk has been established, no matter how much you try to play it down) so other places can grow. If that's the outcome HS2 produces, despite its stated purpose of reducing economic disparities, then someone needs to take a look at it again

 

[The Ham]

Ah, that's ok then, it's only c 470,000 people whose jobs and income are at risk. So as to avoid comparing apples with zebra crossings, would you like to find out the size of the city of Liverpool's economy, tell us by what percentage it will shrink as a result of a loss of £50 m each year, and then remind us that people losing their jobs and income, including (you claim) you, don't matter to you ?

I'm clearly wasting my breath trying to explain why the risk of economic shrinkage, even if there is a possibility of economic benefit, might make a project unattractive to people who might be detrimentally affected by that. If you are telling the truth, and you would honestly be happy to lose your job because someone told you it was necessary for national economic growth, you cannot inhabit the same psychological world as most people

In the past you quoted it started that the Liverpool City region would (regardless of growth rate) would benefit, as such if there are any job losses (which there may also not be but you are ignoring because it doesn't fit with your narrative) then there will be more jobs created within the city region than list within the city.

That may mean that people have to travela bit for work, which will have some impact on their quality of life, but won't leave then withouta job at all.

 

[The Ham]

I've already posted this, but since you're making such an extra special effort to undermine HS2's own consultants I'll post it again (table containing specific figures in link at end):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24589652

That £50 m is not a one-off figure. It is what Liverpool's economy is at risk of shrinking by per annum. Ok, it would take 620 years to wipe out its entire GVA, but it's hardly the correct direction of travel.

For perhaps the 20th time, I'll put these questions:
1. Why do you consider it acceptable for HS2, a project which is supposed to be about rebalancing the economy, to create a risk of economic shrinkage to a city it is meant to be serving ?
2. If your income or job was under threat as a result of shrinking economic output, would you be so comfortable about it happening ?

My reading of the table is that it will only shrink if HS2 it's in the high growth figure, as such your argument is:

HS2 risks people's jobs

This is the case when HS2 has lots of passengers (assuming that I'm reading the table right)

We should therefore not build HS2


Can you see why I am struggling to take your concern as a serious issue; in that if HS2 does well and justifies being built, which is when it harms Liverpool, then we shouldn't have built HS2.

However it should be noted that in such a high growth case then the case for the Liverpool extension improves and therefore is more likely to happen. Which is what you want to happen.