Jump to content

Stop HS2 and save Savay


Stop HS2

Recommended Posts

This says it all. I make no excuse for copying this article by Andrea Leadsom MP.

 

At a feisty debate in Parliament last week there was universal agreement about the need to improve Britain’s transport infrastructure! But that’s where the consensus ends - and I for one am sick and tired of the debate on High Speed Rail being trivialised into a debate on Southern Nimbys versus the poverty stricken North.

 

The debate should be about how best to deliver badly needed infrastructure and ensure a re-balancing of our economy with a private sector led recovery across the UK. HS2 would cost each family in Britain more than £1,000, so it must be properly scrutinised to deliver not just extra capacity, but also the value for money that taxpayers are entitled to expect for their money.

 

I think HS2 is flawed in three main areas; the business case, the environmental case and the claims about job creation and the potential for regeneration. HS2 Ltd claims a net benefit ratio that includes the wider economic impacts of 2.0 - this means £2 of benefit for every £1 spent. This is about the minimum return that could be expected from a rail project and far below the bar set for road projects. Even this modest claim makes enormous assumptions. Specifically, a core and ludicrous assumption is that all time on train journeys is wasted, and therefore that every minute of a train journey that is saved can be given a value in pounds. This wouldn’t matter so much except that the journey time savings account for over 50% of the £20 billion of total economic benefit expected from the project!

 

Passenger forecasts are another major assumption within the business case, relying on a 216% rise in demand for train travel. The Department for Transport’s own National Travel Survey shows that overall transport demand is no longer growing with GDP. Eurostar’s passenger numbers in 2009 only reached around a third of the level forecast at the time of building the HS1 link. The Department for Transport appeared before the Public Accounts Committee over HS1, and assured them that lessons had been learned and any future major project would factor in more severe downside assumptions...

 

In cash terms HS2 will never pay for itself. Once built only a third of the total claimed benefits will be captured through fares. The value of the net revenues once it has been built, forecast to be fares of £14 billion less operating costs of £6 billion over a 60 year project life, will cover less than half of the capital costs. Between 2009 and 2015, the DfT expects to have spent around £1 billion just on preparing the way for High Speed Rail. At a time when families up and down the country are feeling the pinch infrastructure projects must, now more than ever, offer value for money.

 

Second, the environmental impact: HS2 Ltd themselves say that this project is at best, carbon neutral. They predict that 65% of passengers will either transfer from existing rail services, where faster trains inevitably increase carbon emissions, or are additional ‘new’ journeys as a result of the faster trains, which also increases emissions. The shorter journeys by air that will transfer to HS2 will ironically provide more capacity at our regional airports for cheaper long haul flights. It is estimated that the modal shift from car to high speed train will be 7%. HS2 Ltd’s own forecast is that M1 traffic volumes will only reduce by 2% as a result of HS2. There will also be a significant environmental impact during construction, as well as to the English countryside, wildlife and historic sites. I won’t go into this in detail here, but the impact on communities and countryside is hugely damaging.

 

Third, the prospects for job creation and regeneration. The Department for Transport forecasts that HS2 will create 30,000 new jobs. 9,000 will be construction jobs and likely to be temporary. The rest are expected to be skewed towards property development and retail near to stations. Up to 70% of these jobs will benefit London, where Old Oak Common is believed to be the best location for regeneration. Research done into capital expenditure in the wider economy suggests that the cost to create one job in the first phase is around 4 times what experience elsewhere would predict...

 

HS1’s experience has not yet delivered the predicted regeneration of towns like Ashford. In fact, traditional commuter trains are now in some cases slower and more packed than ever while the expensive HS1 thunders by half empty.

 

I think that there is a viable alternative to HS2 – I have urged the Government to carry out an independent evaluation of Rail Package 2. RP2 claims to provide 135% extra capacity extendable to 176% and a significant advantage of it is that it can be introduced incrementally as passenger demand increases. RP2 would require lengthening all Pendolino trains to 11 cars from the current mix of 9 and 11 cars, replacing some commuter trains with 125mph stock so as not to delay faster trains, dealing with bottlenecks at seven specific points along the line, adding platforms at Euston and Manchester and considering laying more track into Birmingham.

 

RP2 claims a benefit cost ratio of 1.9 (versus 1.6 for HS2 London to West Midlands excluding the ‘wider economic impacts’). It can be delivered far quicker than HS2, dealing with the problem of over-crowding now rather than leaving the commuters of Manchester, Birmingham, Rugby and Milton Keynes to wait for relief until 2026. The danger of overestimating demand is also removed. RP2 can be implemented incrementally; it’s not all or nothing, problems can be dealt with as they arise. It is of course, around half the cost of the first phase of HS2!

 

Supporters of HS2 should stop passing off opposition as NIMBYISM. There are legitimate questions about value for money and many organisations are now questioning the business case including the TaxPayer’s Alliance, the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, Friends of the Earth, the Sustainable Development Commission, rail experts and the Countryside Alliance. We must have a robust debate on High Speed Rail. Taxpayers should not be picking up the tab for a project with an uncertain outcome until all legitimate questions and concerns have been properly addressed.

 

Andy, can you tell what part of this viaduct dose not go through the middle of the lakes in the Valley? Oh, and also the picture looks pretty much the same as the one in the Korda article to me but then again I haven't got your knowlege of Photoshop.

 

http://www.uxbridgegazette.co.uk/west-lond...13046-28472469/

 

This says it all too::

 

April 13, 2011

The Campaign for High Speed Rail today condemned plans by Lord (Simon) Wolfson, a key mover in the opposition to high-speed rail, for a new motorway linking the southern cities of Cambridge and Oxford, as well as emergency measures to create a new “tech city” on nearby agricultural land.

Professor David Begg, Director of the Campaign for High Speed Rail, said: “Lord Wolfson – the leader of the campaign against high-speed rail – has just given away the real agenda of those who oppose the project. They have no interest in regenerating our great Northern cities. They just want better motorways for the prosperous south so that, for instance, professors and businesspeople can shuttle between two prosperous university towns more quickly.”

Miranda Barker, Managing Director of Allan Environmental Solutions in Manchester, said: “As a mother living in the North, I am concerned for the future of my young son. Lord Wolfson and his ilk clearly don’t understand the challenges of people living outside Westminster. My child should not have to move out of the region to find jobs because those in power forgot to invest in the futures of the British people living outside of the South East.”

Deborah Smith, Solihull resident and Director of Hands Up For High Speed 2, said: “It is farcical that Simon Wolfson is calling for a new city in the South, when Britain has existing cities with huge potential in desperate need of investment. Local environmental groups are going to be up in arms about such a plan that will concrete large tracts of beautiful countryside. I would urge politicians from all parties to reject the fanciful and dangerous plans of Lord Wolfson for what they really are – ideologically-driven proposals with no concern for regenerating economies elsewhere.”

Professor David Begg added: “Ironically, Lord Wolfson’s motorway would be much more damaging for the countryside, taking up more than double the space of a railway line as well as grabbing green-field land for a new city. London has had a huge amount of investment in recent years with projects like the Tube upgrade, Thameslink and Crossrail receiving more than £20 billion of funding. We desperately need to rebalance our economy and breathe new life into some of our northern cities. Plans for more roads for rich people would do neither.”

Lord Wolfson’s article ‘Silicon Valley? Britain can have a brain belt’, in today’s Timescan be accessed here (£).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This says it all. I make no excuse for copying this article by Andrea Leadsom MP.

 

At a feisty debate in Parliament last week there was universal agreement about the need to improve Britain’s transport infrastructure! But that’s where the consensus ends - and I for one am sick and tired of the debate on High Speed Rail being trivialised into a debate on Southern Nimbys versus the poverty stricken North.

 

The debate should be about how best to deliver badly needed infrastructure and ensure a re-balancing of our economy with a private sector led recovery across the UK. HS2 would cost each family in Britain more than £1,000, so it must be properly scrutinised to deliver not just extra capacity, but also the value for money that taxpayers are entitled to expect for their money.

 

I think HS2 is flawed in three main areas; the business case, the environmental case and the claims about job creation and the potential for regeneration. HS2 Ltd claims a net benefit ratio that includes the wider economic impacts of 2.0 - this means £2 of benefit for every £1 spent. This is about the minimum return that could be expected from a rail project and far below the bar set for road projects. Even this modest claim makes enormous assumptions. Specifically, a core and ludicrous assumption is that all time on train journeys is wasted, and therefore that every minute of a train journey that is saved can be given a value in pounds. This wouldn’t matter so much except that the journey time savings account for over 50% of the £20 billion of total economic benefit expected from the project!

 

Passenger forecasts are another major assumption within the business case, relying on a 216% rise in demand for train travel. The Department for Transport’s own National Travel Survey shows that overall transport demand is no longer growing with GDP. Eurostar’s passenger numbers in 2009 only reached around a third of the level forecast at the time of building the HS1 link. The Department for Transport appeared before the Public Accounts Committee over HS1, and assured them that lessons had been learned and any future major project would factor in more severe downside assumptions...

 

In cash terms HS2 will never pay for itself. Once built only a third of the total claimed benefits will be captured through fares. The value of the net revenues once it has been built, forecast to be fares of £14 billion less operating costs of £6 billion over a 60 year project life, will cover less than half of the capital costs. Between 2009 and 2015, the DfT expects to have spent around £1 billion just on preparing the way for High Speed Rail. At a time when families up and down the country are feeling the pinch infrastructure projects must, now more than ever, offer value for money.

 

Second, the environmental impact: HS2 Ltd themselves say that this project is at best, carbon neutral. They predict that 65% of passengers will either transfer from existing rail services, where faster trains inevitably increase carbon emissions, or are additional ‘new’ journeys as a result of the faster trains, which also increases emissions. The shorter journeys by air that will transfer to HS2 will ironically provide more capacity at our regional airports for cheaper long haul flights. It is estimated that the modal shift from car to high speed train will be 7%. HS2 Ltd’s own forecast is that M1 traffic volumes will only reduce by 2% as a result of HS2. There will also be a significant environmental impact during construction, as well as to the English countryside, wildlife and historic sites. I won’t go into this in detail here, but the impact on communities and countryside is hugely damaging.

 

Third, the prospects for job creation and regeneration. The Department for Transport forecasts that HS2 will create 30,000 new jobs. 9,000 will be construction jobs and likely to be temporary. The rest are expected to be skewed towards property development and retail near to stations. Up to 70% of these jobs will benefit London, where Old Oak Common is believed to be the best location for regeneration. Research done into capital expenditure in the wider economy suggests that the cost to create one job in the first phase is around 4 times what experience elsewhere would predict...

 

HS1’s experience has not yet delivered the predicted regeneration of towns like Ashford. In fact, traditional commuter trains are now in some cases slower and more packed than ever while the expensive HS1 thunders by half empty.

 

I think that there is a viable alternative to HS2 – I have urged the Government to carry out an independent evaluation of Rail Package 2. RP2 claims to provide 135% extra capacity extendable to 176% and a significant advantage of it is that it can be introduced incrementally as passenger demand increases. RP2 would require lengthening all Pendolino trains to 11 cars from the current mix of 9 and 11 cars, replacing some commuter trains with 125mph stock so as not to delay faster trains, dealing with bottlenecks at seven specific points along the line, adding platforms at Euston and Manchester and considering laying more track into Birmingham.

 

RP2 claims a benefit cost ratio of 1.9 (versus 1.6 for HS2 London to West Midlands excluding the ‘wider economic impacts’). It can be delivered far quicker than HS2, dealing with the problem of over-crowding now rather than leaving the commuters of Manchester, Birmingham, Rugby and Milton Keynes to wait for relief until 2026. The danger of overestimating demand is also removed. RP2 can be implemented incrementally; it’s not all or nothing, problems can be dealt with as they arise. It is of course, around half the cost of the first phase of HS2!

 

Supporters of HS2 should stop passing off opposition as NIMBYISM. There are legitimate questions about value for money and many organisations are now questioning the business case including the TaxPayer’s Alliance, the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, Friends of the Earth, the Sustainable Development Commission, rail experts and the Countryside Alliance. We must have a robust debate on High Speed Rail. Taxpayers should not be picking up the tab for a project with an uncertain outcome until all legitimate questions and concerns have been properly addressed.

 

Andy, can you tell what part of this viaduct dose not go through the middle of the lakes in the Valley? Oh, and also the picture looks pretty much the same as the one in the Korda article to me but then again I haven't got your knowlege of Photoshop.

 

http://www.uxbridgegazette.co.uk/west-lond...13046-28472469/

 

 

 

 

It isnt a Eurostar Service at all. What sort of stupid comparison is that?

Its about linking up Britain - not about nipping over to Paris for a couple bottles of wine and some cheap fags.

 

RP2 has been throughly dismissed already. Keep up man! Im happy to copy and paste loads of stuff on this if you really want me to.

Rumour has it that one of the people preparing that report is themselves a railway consultant ...who has made their fortune working on schemes that have had an impact of others. Oh dear. It just also happens that the hs2 proposals go through that person's garden! Oh very dear! Oops!

 

The project is about future proofing the country. It is addressing future demands and future capacity issues with capacity. Stop comparing it to todays issues.

Its about future capacity and the fact that we can no longer rely on our current transport schemes and modes of transport. We really are a selfish lot!!

I read the other day that the m25 has a road survey done back in 2008(ish). There were over 195,000 cars counted alone in one stretch in just one day!!! Come on get real. Are you proposing we build more roads? Invest in cars?

 

The scheme isnt about me or you now.

It isnt about people now ... its about issues of the future.

It isnt about spending money now ...in a down turn. The money will be invested from future money if the proposal goes ahead - in the future.

The scheme doesnt start for bloody years! IN FACT ...NOT FULLY COMPLETE UNTIL 2033!

 

This is about a network linking the country's major cities. Look at how many northern cities support the proposal for God's sake.

It is about investment and major regeneration.

 

How is the BAN FISHING AT CEMEX WATERS IF YOU REALLY WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT HS2 going?

 

Tight lines ...and bendy rods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I least we now have a link to a real visualisation done by HS2. So thanks for getting that correct ...at least you've got something correct. What i said in my comment previously was that the bridge shown on in the article on the Korda website is fantasy based on what is basically a 75m road bridge. You also describe 75m width in your text. You need to correct this as it is completely untrue.

 

If you read the information provided by HS2 you will see that it will indeed need a very large bit of landtake for construction. So your engineering friend is correct. But the proposed location for this is next to the m25.

 

Im with barry on this one. there is a lot of talk about blight but very little evidence for it Im afraid

 

I'm with you on your posting. Ahh so i was right about this seven trussed bridge span proposel then. :D

 

 

 

Yet again, hs1, the blight, folkestone to london, less than 50 buildings demolished, in a hugely overpopulated area. Nashendean farm, cluster of approximatly 15 properties, not only where they built around with the motorway and hs1, two are slap bang underneath the motorway extention now. All of the owners where compensated, i know a few of them personally and they have gone on to bigger and better locations nearby. All of the properties in nashendean farm are occupied some with existing people who choose to stay and others who moved in because the cost of the buildings reflected the location. Me i wished i had joined them. Now that all has settled down, whats the problem.

 

Tell me honestly do you think hs1 and the motorway widening should not have been built. Because of the dispruption. There was a lot of negative nymbyism at the time. Answer that one. Honestly, and you will have the answer for hs2. Will the fish really be bothered by the trains. Where hs1 goes over the medway, it's a good place for sole and eels apparently. B) Bet there's bass and mullet up there in the summer.

Edited by barry luxton

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont really want to get too involved as it doesnt really affect me, but it really is time they sorted out the railways in britain.

 

Filthy dirty, unreliable and expensive. Decades behind the rest of Europe in high speed technology as well.

 

The ratio of 2:1 on money invested to benefits is certainly the case of high speed trains in continental Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here ya go, south of france from london for just over 50 quid each way, work that out per mile, cheap as chips. just imagine south of france to birmingham.

 

http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/dest...southfrance.jsp

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have more high speed trains than anywhere else in Europe. It is used by everybody.

All state owned and cheap. I can buy a ticket online for Valencia-Madrid for around 35€.

95 mins between the two cities at 330 Km/hr.

Immaculatly clean, free internet on the train.....Even the ordanairy busses that drive around Madrid have free internet though........ :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

london has an underground system run by a certain bob crow. it only runs when he tells it to.

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see our masters will have a say in this argument and insist that hs2 will be good for us or else. :lol:

 

http://travel.aol.co.uk/2011/04/19/eu-plan...hts-altogether/

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.