Does HS2 make economic or environmental sense?

[rov1100]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16453869

Despite enormous opposition from many quarters the approval for this line is expected next week. Forget the NIMBYs who would be against it for personal reasons.

Even Labour MPs are clamouring for it...could it be politicians would happen to be the main beneficiaries when travelling to their constituences at public expense.

[LazyGun]

Have a read of these links, rov, and then make up your mind ;)

For myself, I think on balance that HS2 would be a good idea, but thats essentially a gut reaction based upon the fact that i like hi tech infra-structure ;)

http://www.campaignforhsr.com/

http://stophs2.org/

It probably comes down to whether or not you believe the economic case put forward by the supporters of HS2, which must of necessity be estimations.

[mushroom25]

perhaps politicians and big business taking a more long term view - in not too many years there will be a need to get around britain when the cost of fuel will have stopped most internal flights; it won't be much good waiting for that to happen before building HS2 as the alternative.

[Gromit]

HS1 seems to have been a success. So I imagine HS2 will be as well.

When the first motorway was built in the 1950s it would have been a mistake to have stopped at that one and continued using B roads instead of building a motorway network.

The rail network is very old and consists mainly of 'B Roads'. The HS routes are the motorways of rail.

Anedotal, but I find it is mainly people who do not use railways who are against further expansion of the network.

[Mosaic]

High speed trains have taken decades to plan and implement on the continent, where governments are commited to making an affordable, efficient passenger transport infrastructure.
What will happen in UK plc is an obscenely expensive PFI will run the project and eventually produce something that is partially successful, dazzlingly expensive to get on and will enable stockbrokers to get from the midlands to their Eurostar link without driving.
Who will profit?
Well, there'll be some jobs going whle the project runs. But the big money won't be nationally owned, it'll go into the likes of Balfour Beatty, whoever runs the PFI.

[New Judge]

The main disadvantage with HS2 is where it terminates in London (Euston). Because of its facilities for onward travel it is the most unsuitable of all the rail termini north of the Thames. Euston is served by only two lines on the Underground (albeit the Northern Line has two branches towards the city). Its underground station is very cramped and is prone to congestion at peak times (even at present without HS2). It already has to be closed to incoming passengers from time to time and TfL has suggested that this may be necessary more frequently as passenger numbers increase. Although there are plans to rebuild Euston as part of the HS2 project there are no plans to expand the capacity of the underground lines serving Euston and lack of capacity on outgoing trains is the reason the underground station has to be closed (to avoid dangerous congestion on the platforms).

For the project to realise its main benefit (shorter journey times from the Midlands and the North) this problems needs to be addressed. There is no point spending £20bn cutting twenty minutes off the Birmingham to London time if the passenger is then going to spend that twenty minutes waiting to get down the tube. The ideal solution would be to terminate HS2 at either Kings Cross or St Pancras where better onward connections (including HS1 to the continent) are more readily available.

As far as the overall benefits are concerned, rail travel in the UK is already beyond the means of many people. There is no doubt that HS2 will be a “Premium” service (as is HS1). There may be a few stockbrokers in the Midlands wishing to travel to London (though I don’t think too many of that esteemed profession live north of Watford) but I believe the forecasts produced by the scheme’s supporters are highly optimistic.

Some of their propaganda is misleading: “Deutsche Bahn has already confirmed plans to operate services between German and Dutch cities and London in 2012 or 2013”. In fact DB announced just before Christmas that their plans to run through services to London had hit “almost insurmountable problems” and would not now be launched in the foreseeable future.

I am a staunch enthusiast and supporter of rail. I believe that rail travel is probably the most efficient and environmentally friendly way to move people and goods around Britain (though not quite as friendly as HS2 proponents would have us believe). Nonetheless, overall I think that HS2 is a scheme the country can ill afford and which will benefit too few people (mainly because of the cost of travelling on it). It will provide employment whilst it is being constructed, but so does painting coal white.

So, economical sense? No. Environmental sense? Regretably, no, because I do not believe a strong enough case has been made for its necessity.

[Gromit]

Terminating at Euston and not St. Pancras from where HS1 departs is a strange decision. There are 5 underground lines connecting the two and plans for a road based rapid transport system as well.

[New Judge]

Sorry, gromit, I'm not quite clear. What are the five lines connecting? Do you mean Euston and St Pancras? If so, what are they? I can only think of the Victoria and Northern Lines (Bank branch). Using them to get from one to the other will take longer than walking, even if one is not delayed by the congestion problems I outlined.

Must say I didn't know about the road based rapid transit system. I wonder where in the Euston Road it will be accommodated ?!?!?!?

[rov1100]

///HS1 seems to have been a success. So I imagine HS2 will be as well.///

Yes it was a success and still is. When you could get to Paris and return for £59 it deserves applause.

The trouble with HS2 is that the paying customer will have to meet 1/2 of the cost of installation, about £20bn. As fares are going through the roof this will only be available for the rich privileged few.

[MantaRay]

So what are we going to do with all that commuter travelling time saved? Get to the office a few minutes quicker for a 20 minute coffee break? Looking at the journey time savings with HS2 it's hardly the difference between piston engined aircraft and jet airliners is it! Considering the costs involved I'd prefer to see improvements on the nations "main" rail networks.

[EvianBaby]

I have always believed the whole point of HS2 is so the Gov can say to other countires, "look what we did, aren' we clever" and try to show that Britain is not behind the times.

I haven't seen anything enough to convince me it's a good idea and think they'd be better placed spending the money in improving the current facilities.

But then you could consider me a NIMBY.

[MantaRay]

Anybody else concerned about what will happen when a 250mph train crashes? Will there be huge barriers and/or run off areas to protect the surrounding areas and property? And will there be seat belts and roll over protection built in? Don't misunderstand me, I'm quite happy travelling at 500+mph in an airliner but not so happy at high speed ground level where the medium is a lot more vulnerable and readily accessible.

[mccfluff]

living very close to one of the areas where the hs2 line will be run, very much against it

[rov1100]

Mantaray you have put your finger on an important point. How long before the nutters who throw stones at cars on motorways divert their attentions to a much publicised HS rail line?

[DTCwordfan]

I dont know why they can't build along the existing lines - a wide motorway rather than rip up the countryside - and surely it would be cheaper....yes it may involve some disruption for current users - but a lot of them would benefit in time.....