Labour’s plan for high-speed rail, which I unveiled last March, is a key part of our strategy for growth, regional development and sustainable mobility. It is vital Labour’s forthcoming policy review reaffirms our commitment to this flagship policy, putting Britain on a par with the rest of western Europe where, country by country, interconnected high-speed networks are under construction.
Visualise a future where Birmingham and London are barely half an hour apart – and Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield are just an hour and a quarter from the capital, with radically faster and more reliable train services between the major cities of the Midlands and the north. Where London to Glasgow and Edinburgh takes only three and a half hours by train, largely eradicating the domestic aviation which dominates these routes because of the slow rail journey times. And where all London-bound high-speed trains connect directly into the new £16 billion Crossrail line before they get to central London, giving an added journey time of only 10 minutes to Heathrow and the West End, 15 minutes to the City and 20 minutes to Canary Wharf.
The social and economic geography of Britain would be transformed. And compared to either of the other options for providing additional intercity transport capacity in the next generation – expanded motorways or more domestic aviation – the carbon impact is far less, which is part of the reason Ed Miliband supported the plans so enthusiastically.
However, the case for high-speed rail turns not only on speed and carbon reduction, but also on capacity and connectivity.
The existing West Coast Main Line from London to Birmingham, Manchester, the northwest and Glasgow is already operating near capacity at its southern end, and it will be severely overloaded and congested by the mid-2020s even with longer trains. There will also be serious capacity constraints on both the Midland Main Line (from London to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield), and the East Coast Main Line (from London to Leeds, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh).
Without high-speed rail, the upgrading of the West Coast Main Line between London and the west Midlands required to ease this congestion, and enable more freight to be carried by rail, would in fact cost more than the £17 billion cost of the proposed High Speed Two line from London to Birmingham. Yet upgrading existing lines provides only a fraction of the extra capacity of a high-speed line, and few of the time saving and connectivity benefits.
It would be reactionary folly to baulk at the proposed HS2 project because of its public investment cost, only to have to pay more for a worse result by adopting a short-term patch-and-mend approach instead. Any traveller from Euston in the last decade remembers the cost and disruption of the last patch-and-mend strategy: £10 billion of investment to the West Coast Main Line, involving 10 years of constant disruption to services, with only modest extra capacity and reliability.
The connectivity gains from high-speed rail are equally impressive. Britain is still constrained by its Victorian railway network, built by competing private companies with their entirely separate London termini and routes north. Birmingham – Britain’s second city – is effectively an intercity branch line off the West Coast Main Line, so connections between Birmingham, the East Midlands, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and the north are extremely poor.
The 335-mile ‘Y’ shaped HS2 line overcomes this historic weakness.
Birmingham International becomes the junction of the ‘Y’ as the line splits to the northwest, and the northeast. The connection directly into Crossrail in London multiplies these connectivity benefits still further. Equally important, the high-speed trains can run on both high-speed and existing track, so from the outset they are able to serve destinations beyond the initial ‘Y’ network (including Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh).
Speed, capacity, connectivity, carbon reduction – HS2 unites all four to transform Britain’s 21st century transport networks. That’s why high-speed rail is one of our boldest progressive policies for renewing Britain, and promoting growth and social cohesion across the cities and regions. Only timidity and lack of vision hold it back.
Andrew Adonis is a former secretary of state for transport
LABOUR 4 HIGH SPEED 2 – CAMPAIGN
High Speed is good for growth, capacity and connectivity. It will close the north-south divide, promote green jobs and cut carbon emissions by reducing the need for domestic flights.
Labour should support the development of High Speed Two and wish to see Labour re-commit itself to the project as part of the policy review. It is wrong the Tory-led government only plan to legislate for a small part of the potential route and wish to see them amend the legislation to enable the full potential of Lord Adonis’ planned high-speed network.
Progress with the support of SERA and others, are campaigning for Labour to commit to the future of high-speed rail, and call on the Tory-led government to amend their current legislation (only allowing high-speed rail to Birmingham) so the whole country can reap the benefits of the high-speed network.
Sign the petition now:
Promote the campaign:
- Send the following tweet to support the campaign:
#ISupport the @Progressonline #Lab4HS2 campaign – sign the petition now: http://bit.ly/hPPFhQ #Going4Growth
- Use #labour4highspeed2 when promoting the campaign on twitter
- Download a petition to circulate at a local meeting, workplaceor social venue < download here
- Pass a motion at your local branch or CLP meeting < download here
Labour 4 High Speed 2 Campaign motion
This CLP believes:
- High Speed Two announced under Labour was a bold, progressive step to a greener, more cohesive and connected Britain and crucial to getting the UK economy growing again.
- HS2 is best placed to lead a revolution in green jobs and cuts carbon emissions by reducing the need for domestic flights.
- The benefits of HS2 go beyond speed and carbon reduction and include the connectivity and capacity currently denied by the Victorian infrastructure of the current network.
- It is wrong that the Tory-led government only plan to legislate for a small part of the potential route and we wish to see them amend the legislation to enable the full potential of Lord Adonis’ planned high-speed network from London to the Midlands, the north and Scotland.
This CLP resolves:
- To support the Labour 4 High Speed 2 campaign, which urges Labour to recommit to High Speed Two in our policy review.
- To circulate the petition around CLP members encouraging them to show their support for HS2.
- To contact the campaign organisers and provide a quote for their campaign site from the appropriate CLP officer.
- To send the motion into the Partnership in Power process and circulate to your regional National Policy Forum reps.
- To campaign for the high-speed rail bill to be amended to extend the scheme beyond Birmingham.
Thanks for your support.
I couldn’t agree more, it’s time we caught up to High Speed Rail here in Britain. As recent figures showed, train usage in this country is at its highest level since 1926 so we should be backing bold plans such as these to keep pace with the growth in demand and lure people into more sustainable modes of transport.
The problem with HS2 is that it is a 20th century project in a 21st century world. We really need to move on from the outdated concept of moving people about very fast and provide really ‘ and green’ truly national connectivity by investing in a world class ultra-high speed broadband network. Instead of playing catch-up with Europe we should be catching up with the burgeoning economies of the far East. The Labour party should be challenging both HS2 and the inadequate broadband proposals put forward by Jeremy Hunt last autumn, which will leave us in the second division of global economies by 2050. And instead of promoting a scheme which relies for its viability on 35,000 passengers a day making journeys they would not take without HS2, we should be challenging Hammond to develop the Travel Reduction initiative he announced last September – that’s the really ‘green’ option.
As part of a seriously unprogressive New Labour government which for example achieved little or nothing in terms of reducing regional disparities, Lord Adonis is not in a good position to take the progressive high ground. The fact is that HS2 has no business case, will be carbon-neutral at best, and will bring more benefit to London than the regions.
It’s good to see HS2 at the top of the political agenda. More people need to come out in support of HS2 which is not only crucial for the economic development of the North but for the economy of UK. Don’t be a silent supporter Say YesToHS2. http://www.YesToHS2.co.uk
High Speed rail is proving problematic and very costly inmany countries accross Europe and is survinving only because those govts are massively subsidising it. Surely the UK should look closely at the lesson to be learnt from others before committing to this? HS2 – -by thier own statistics – is “broadley carbon neutral” so I fail to see how this will assist the UK in meeting it’s green targets, especially when an area of the country the size of greater Manchester wil have been concreted over by the time this project is complete. Whilst I appreciate that Technology will not allow freight to be moved, the passenger numbers quoted – especially in terms of growth over the next 15 years – are a fantasy. Surely with rising fuel costs and the growth of home based workers, more and more companies will exploit technology for conferencing etc, as workforces are downscaled due to the economic downturn, business travel expenses are being slashed and workload for those lucky enough to be employed is increasing so there will be little time to waste travelling to meetings that can be held whilst sitting at your desk. If the WCML is already as close to capacity as the scaremonger would ahve us believe, what plans are in place to deal with this now? HS2 will not be active until at least 2026 so I would be interested in the 15 year contingency plan! As the austerity measures bite, fuel costs rise far above those of our European neighbours and the threat of interest rate rises on our homes due to inflation squeeze everyone to the limit, there needs to be far more thought on the this project before any commitment is made.
But where are the facts, Andrew? This is no more than a “puff piece” for a hugely expensive vanity project built to serve the needs of rich businessmen travelling between London and Birmingham. (As you well know Andrew, the economic case for HS2 is based on time saving for passengers earning an average of £80k p.a) Green benefits will – according to the HS2 report you presented last March – “best be neutral” and “may even increase the carbon footprint” – hardly a green revolution. And this excludes the exgra Co2 generated from building the new line. As for the current network becoming congested being used to justify this huge expense, you publicly stated at the HS2 launch that “Long distance rail transport will triple by 2033”. That was spectacularly wrong as the real figure is a 46% growth by 2033 – as now conceded by HS2 Ltd, the company you set up to promote High Speed rai. Railway capacity is an issue which can be addressed more cheaply and quickly by investing in the current infrastructure – not on rail link which won’t see service until 2024. Wth hospitals sacking doctors and nurses, councils sacking hundreds of thousands of workers, do we really want to spend £19bn on a vainity project to provide a rich mans railway between London and Birmingham?
High Speed Rail looks like an attactive proposition until you study it closely. Then you realise its just a vanity project for politicians who want their name to be associated with something fast and high-tech. In fact it’s a) not green – even HS2 Ltd admit the project is at best carbon neutral b) poor value for money – it will cost £1250 per household. HS1 in Kent cost four times more per metre than in France. Demand for HS1 has been one third of that forecast. Forecasts for HS2 seem vastly inflated – over double what other organisations have forecast. Even with this the net benefit ratios don’t stack up. c) not needed. Even the vastly inflated demand forecasts can be met by upgrading the existing network at a fraction of the cost – see the Atkins proposal they call Rail Package On d) there is no evidence that linking the major cities will bost the economies of those in the north rather than sucking more money to London
This is high speed folly. Hasn’t anybody noticed that our existing rail journey times between our capital city and 4/5 main urban centres are ALREADY faster than France, Spain, Italy and Germany who already have high speed rail? We are a small country, yet the proposals are for a design speed (400kph) far gfaster than anywhere in Europe! The higher the speed the higher the cost, environmental damage and carbon emissions. UK needs its own bespoke transport provision – a Toyota Prius NOT a Ferrari!
HS2 is the wrong idea at the wrong time and the country cannot afford it. It is anti-social and plain wicked to spend £35billion on a white elephant at a time when the country and the majority of hard working ordinary people are in dire straits economically. It is wrong to let big business and the fat cats grow richer still whilst cutting all of the services of a decent society. I would rather taxpayer’s money were spent on the things disappearing i.e. police, NHS, both hospitals and community, schools and education, the legal system (e.g courts) local authority provision (eg libraries, social support) …. and of course, shared resources such as FORESTS! Once the country wakes up to the realisation that HS2 will take away even more from them, they will rise up and be furious. I urge all right minded people NOT to sign pro HS2 petitions but to sign ANTI ones (as I have done)
HS2 is of no benefit to the people who live along the route, all they get is the countryside devastated and the noise so that a few fat cats can save twenty minutes between London and Birmingham. Anyway, the Labour Government left this country broke. Remember?
HS2 will be an ecconomic and environmental disaster which generations will regret due to a legacy of debt. It will not bring jobs to the regions once construction has ended, much migrant labour will be needed for construction as was seen by the canals in the 1800’s. Great Britain cant wait for a project like this in an easy attempt to reduce unemployment, our captains of industry should be getting off their bottoms now if they really care about creating jobs for our young people.
The business case for HS2 is unproven it is in fact vanity, it suggests just because Europe has it we do also. The cost for the route at 33 Billion which incidently is just the infrastructure and not the rolloing stock or operating cost will make it too expensive without significant subsidy. So we pay for it to build, we pay for it to run, we then sell it to the Eurpoeans for a fraction of the cost. We have not learnt the lesson of HS1. It will not be utilised as an alternative for air travel which will still be a cheaper option. Sorry but it is a concept flawed at every level.
I couldn’t agree less.I daresay road and air passengers have increased considerably since 1926,too!Of course,the more you provide,the more it will be used,but that doesn’t make it desirable.If politicians were truly green,and not using this as justification for their vain empire-building,they’d be encouraging people to make fuller use of broadband,and cutting down on travel.That is the future,and the answer to connectivity.On the one hand they’re throwing thousands of people out of work,and on the other,telling us HS2 is going to bring “huge economic benefits”.HOW?
I’m sorry, but high-speed rail is not green. It will encourage more long-distance commuting, when we should be trying to conserve energy, and if airlines do stop flying from Glasgow or Edinburgh to London, their landing slots will be taken by much more heavily polluting internation flights.
HS2 is misconceived and is predicated not on evidence based economic and environmental arguments but on bare assertion which does not stand up to scrutiny. It is on the basis of clear evidence that it should make it’s case. It can not do so, and falls back on hollow open ended calls to national interest.
The proposed new track called HS2 does not connect to the Crossrail track. Crossrail has no station at Old Oak Common. Crossrail has stations at Paddington and Acton and nothing in-between. It is wrong to say twice in your article that HS2 connects to Crossrail. So us passangers from the West Midlands cannot change trains from the proposed high speed line, with its two types of train to the Crossrail line. And changing trains anyway is an odd concept for so much money.
but we do need the third runway at Heathrow ,it has been overcrowded for some time and the economy needs it. The last three times I came in there we had trouble landing because we were too close to the plane in front.The last time, I kid you not we had to suddenly take off again at a really steep angle (like in the movie Airplane – but not so funny) then we had to circle for so long that some people began to worry that we were going to run out of fuel! honestly. The new light bodied carbon composite planes should use less fuel and help tech.manufacture,though the sudden increase (13% ?) in aluminium will be impacting on this ? that’s it isn’t it – soon as we bloody need it the bloody speculators have a field day (‘cept they prefer beaches ,don’t they ,and preferably on an island tax haven !)
Fool’s Gold The benefits are completely overstated by advocates of this pie-in-the-sky proposal. The economic benefits overstated by supporters to reduce the north-south divide just won’t accrue. If the first stage to Birmingham ever gets built, that’s as far as it will ever go because by then the politicians and the gullible who support HS2 will face the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that passenger numbers & revenues will fall so far short as to make it unviable. What most people don’t realise for instance, is that the Birmingham HS2 terminus is at least a 10 minute connection from New Street station, so the purported 21 minute saving it time from London to Birmingham looks even less of a justification to waste so much money that could be better spent. What the country needs is a credible high speed fibre optic broadband network, with fibre to every business and dwelling across the British Isles, and not the half-way house solution proposed by the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, where the proposal is simply to have a fibre backbone rolled out to “Hubs” in city centres and towns. What you need is fibre to every premises. This will propel the UK to the top as the most connected country on the planet and will enable High Definition Telepresence Video Conferencing which will do far more to cut C02 emissions, and create an ecosystem fostering job growth and investment way beyond the that which HS2 can deliver. There are much better ways to address congestion on the railways than to risk so much on such a reckless gamble with the country’s future.
Whilst I support HSR in principle the cases for HS2 as currently proposed is seriously flawed. Look at BBC Midlands feed for Saturday 19 February 2011 to see and hear expert analysis of the business case, environmental case and financial case – all seriously flawed. There are far better value for money solutions readily available, and quicker to deliver to market, than the current “vanity project” proposals – whatever your political colour.
UNFORTUNATELY IT WILL COST SO MUCH FOR A TICKET THAT ONLY THE RICH WILL BENEFIT, MEANWHILE TRANSPORT,SCHOOLS AND HEALTH FOR THE POOR WILL BE UNDERFUNDED BY THE STATE BECAUSE IT HAS GOT SO IN DEBT ON ITS HIGHSPEED GLORY CIRCUS. CONCRETEING OVER FARMLAND THE SIZE OF MANCHESTER IS HARDL GREEN OR GOING TO HELP OUR FOOD SHORTAGE. OTHER OPTIONS ARE GREENER.
ALSO BELGIUM HAS ANNOUNCED ITS NEW HIGHSPEED RAIL SCHEME – GUESS WHAT 125MPH WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE BUT CAN’T AFFORD TO BUY NEW CARRIAGES
Good article setting out the overwhelming arguments in favour of High Speed Rail (HSR). There could have been more emphasis on the European aspect of HS2 as mechanism to link provincial UK cities directly to mainland Europe, thus beginning a long overdue process of diminishing the hegemonic grip of London over all aspects of British society but perhaps that’s nitpicking on my part. Perhaps Labour Party members should remind Maria Eagle of the commitment to HSR made by the previous Labour administration. Her dangerously ambiguous messages in recent weeks have fractured the cross party consensus vital to maintain confidence in this necessarily long term project – I’ve already seen comments from anti-HS campaigners (located in true blue Toryland constituencies) who seem to believe that bringing down the current coalition so a newly installed Labour government can cancel HS2 – Ed Milliband needs to reassert his leadership credentials and slap Ms Eagle down, toute suite!
I don’t see how we can commit to this sort of future spending. We can’t afford to build new schools, lollipop ladies are being cut, and policemen are being taken off the streets. Andrew Adonis has not done us any favours because it’s difficult for Labour to argue against a scheme that was pioneered by a Labour government. This scheme needs to be opposed for economic and environmental reasons
Ironic this is on Progressonline….This is where the progress of the future lies … not on 2 bits of steel, and certainly not at 30 bullion when the same ends can be achieved at a fraction of the cost and achieved much sooner. We need jobs, nusrses police and investment in education and need them now. The future does not depend on a time saving of 25 minutes London Birmingham, it depends on the education health and safety of the next generation… and that means ALL children. And for goodness sake… stop using the carbon argument. All the experts, HS2 Ltd and the DfT say it’s carbon neutral compared to flight. HS2 arguments are pure fiction.
anyone with anything but blinkered visions and imoral ideas can see through the typical political jargon big on ideas deliberatly small on detail.we can not as acountry afforrd the economic or social cost of such an unwanted uneeded political ideal .spend less, save our countryside and our countrys economic future and ditch hs2 now!
I am concerned in the variations in the cost benefit of HS2. We have extremely different estimates from the government and the Action Alliance. What is required are independent financial minds to look at the hard facts and give accurate projections based upon a number of variables such as the various predictions in passenger growth and the costs of the addiitonal works recently proposed by Mr. Hammond and his promise to guarantee property prices. With the national debt hitting a trillion pounds the country really needs to know the financial implications of the project: will it (a) roughly break even, (b) create a profit or (c) be a permanent drain on tax revenues for future generations, bearing in mind that billions would beed to be borrowed before the first trains run? Secondly will stations require airport-style security bearing in mind that long-term most long distance passenger traffic north of Birmingham will be funelled down the corridor from Coleshill to the edge of London. One shudders to think of the impact of a bomb going off in a tunnel under the Chilterns on a train travelling at 225 mph. I have yet to see any discussion on this aspect.
When a major city such as Liverpool is continually omitted from these plans I will object to investing money in a scheme that will drive prosperity away from a conurbation the tories have decimated. No Liverpool no support.
As with all politcaly driven ideas they are not backed up with real numbers. By their own standards the justification for HS2 in based on grossly inflated statistics that do not comply with their own codes of practice for justifying such projects. HS2 has now become a vanity project as many now acknowledge the grounds justifying the project do not stand up to “commercial” scrutiny. It has been shown by knowledgable people that cheaper and less risky alternative can deliver the solutions that fit reality. The Govt should really be addressing alternatives to travel they cannot just continue to develop traditional modes of transport indefinitely.
Your commentary makes no mention of connectivity to Heathrow Airport making the UK the only major European country without a direct High Speed Rail link to its hub airport. Indeed it complains that currently Birmingham is a branch off the West Coast Main Line, so what is Heathrow’s relation to HS2 if not a branch? The connection between HS1 and HS2 is a complete bodge taking us back to the early days when Eurostar threaded its way through south London at slow speeds but that was at least a temporary arrangement. A full High Speed rail service from the North to the likes of Brussels, Amsterdam and Frankfurt is a must in order to reduce short-haul air services and therefore carbon emissions. Come on, get real! As for selecting the already overcrowded Euston as the terminal for HS2 and making passengers use a 20th Century idea of a travellator to transfer to St Pancras to catch a connection, defies belief! As HS2 does not appear to cater for freight traffic, the only reason for building HS2 is to release a bit of passenger capacity for extra freight on WCML thus depriving intermediate stations of some services. This seems to be borne out by Euston probably losing some of its main platforms. Generally HS2 is a good idea for the longer term but both Labour and the Coalition have got their scope for the project all wrong. Therefore I am against the project in its current form.
Dear CLP member, Every one of the reasons given in the motion above for supporting the current Government’s high speed rail scheme are extremely weak, and have been taken to pieces by independent analysts and NGOs. As a shortcut, these sites summarise some of that work eg see http://www.hs2aa.co.uk and http://www.stophs2.co.uk Before campaigning for Hammond’s HS2 scheme, be honest enough to get informed. I know of no group opposing the current Government’s high speed scheme (HS2+Y), that is against any of the things you say you want – but the current Government’s HS2 project WILL NOT ACHIEVE THEM. PLEASE wake up and look at the facts before you decide. It’s a complex issue needing a serious commitment to get informed but to just comment on the items in your motion: HS2 is not green – not even the Government argue that any more. Get up to speed – read the facts. HS2 will not lead to a more cohesive Britain – it will be a regressive and divisive policy leading to ongoing annual subsidies by normal tax payers and rail users to some of the wealthiest regions and people. It will draw jobs AWAY from areas that really need them – ask Coventry City Council for their analysis. HS2 is not crucial to getting the economy going again – in fact the current independent data suggests it will cost about £2million for each new job that can be attributed to HS2. If jobs are your focus, there are WAY better things to do, even just in terms of transport schemes, with the £17 Billion to get the line to Birmingham, or the £34 Billion to get it to Leeds and Manchester. HS2 will really and truly not lead to a green revolution or cut carbons. I wish it would! Again, even the current Government have dropped that argument. HS2 will at best be carbon neutral, contributing not one jot to the commitment to reduce CO2 levels by 80%. Look at all the research on this. Do you really want to support a policy that is due to spend £34 Billion to contribute nothing to reducing CO2??? There are much cheaper and faster ways to address the rail capacity issues, which we all agree exist. Look for instance at option RP2 (no, not 2a which the Government sneakily tries to talk about, because 2a doesn’t show the benefits of 2, which they want you to ignore). That’s one of the real problems with Hammond’s HS2 scheme – there has been no independent enquiry across the board into the best ways to deal with the capacity issues and to speed up trains – something that would really be in the NATIONAL interest, and that we all want. I can’t believe that CLP will support such an inadequate scheme involving spending £34 BILLION – at the expense of all the other ways in which transport could be improved, even ignoring all the other areas desperate for funds. HS2 is a debt that we will all have to subsidise (it is not being designed to be commercially successful) in order to give London a replacement for the refused expansion of Heathrow airport by expanding Birmingham airport (Hammond said so); in order to give London access to cheaper commuter labour markets (Hammond said so); in order to develop a track up to Birmingham that will be free of Network Rail and the unions (it will be given a different contract); and in order to provide a flat and straight test track to trial speeds up to 400kph for the next generation of trains to sell to the rest of the world (HS2 Ltd said so). Yes there is more to HS2 than that, but could I suggest that you need to look at the bits of Hammond’s HS2 policy that really should not be part of Labour policy! In the face of massive cuts to public sector jobs and services what makes the CLP even begin to think that they should be supporting HS2? It’s even more than the Trident replacement (£20 Billion). Please, please – get yourselves informed before you support the current Government’s HS2 scheme. It’s rotten to the core and will not deliver any of the things you and I want. Of course Hammond is trying to present all opposition as a bunch of wealthy Chiltern nimbys but we’re not and nor are we idiotic ‘Luddites’ standing against the march of progress! That’s Hammond’s politics but you shouldn’t be getting into bed with him on that! There are loads of us who are appalled at the squandering of £34 Billion on such a scheme that will not deliver what it claims; that will lead to huge long term regressive subsidies; and that is being progressed by such a democratic deficit. We share your aims – you need to realise that Hammond’s HS2 will not deliver them.
I couldn’t agree LESS. It will destroy investment in Birmingham and turn it into a commuter town for London. Trains travelling at 250mph will be fuel-hungry and therefore it is not a low carbon solution. HS1 runs at a loss, so do similar projects in Europe. This is a small, overcrowded island and some of our most beautiful countryside will be torn up and thriving rural businesses lost to make way for this vanity project which is being promoted by politicians wishing to look big on the world stage.
I thought the Socialist party believed in redistributing wealth from the few rich to the poorer many. HS2 does the opposite. Every taxpayer in the country will pay for its constuction and pay for the large subsidies it will require forthe whole of its operating existence, 85 years. But the majority of the users are projected as business men earning in excess of £70,000 per annum, hardly the minimum wage No doubt Lord Adonis earns this amount. The “benefits” derived from the saving of 20 to 30 minutes are based on this income figure.
I do not agree. HS2 will perpetuate an outmoded souped up version of victorian transport technology. It is not green – high speed trains will emit up to four times the amount of CO2. The green option is to reduce the dependence of business on physical travel. The green option is to invest in the regions, which will also reduce the North/South divide. Faster internet connections and availability of broad band to all is a far more sustainable option. Use of the internet in all its many forms is potentially far more accessible to all – the use that ordinary people have made of the internet, Twitter, Facebook etc to air their views (including HS2) is evidence of this. We must progress more effectively and in a way that can be accessed and afforded by all – not just rich businessmen.
The case for HS2 has not been made out and at present the business case and the environmental case do not stand up to examination. There has been no in depth review of what category of traveller needs to be accomodated on trains eg commuter, freight, long distance traveller etc The country is not going to be granted the opportunity of a public review when the proposals can be idependently examined in detail and under these circumstances I oppose the proposals.
Not green – not needed – no money to pay for it.
The major cities in the North and Midlands have seen growth in the last 20 years not seen since Victorian times. Linking to London will undermine that growth by pulling the wealth to London. Economic academics have stated this. 70% of journeys on HS2 will be southbound. Fixing the North/South divide won’t be achieved by linking the North to the South but linking the Midland and Northern cities more efficiently together, so they can trade more effectively and become a large community in their own right. Think of an analogy like Europe vs USA. Think of the untapped markets in Scotland, Yorkshire, Manchester and Cumbria etc. Improve Broadband and let the cottage industries thrive across the country, where such communications are very poor currently. I spoke to someone the other day who said it took then twice as long to travel from Leeds to Manchester than Leeds to London. Why are the people in the North not getting more irate about that kind of dismal service. They are being kept in the dark ages. Capacity can be achieved much more cheaply by making changes to the WCML. Rail Package 2 says so. The numbers might have been buried but RP2 gives more capacity than HS2 when like for like comparisons are made. Put the money you save on HS2 into getting those Northern Cities better connected. They don’t need London to prosper.
This rail line is desperately needed!!! The problem at the moment is there are so many myths floating round this project that it is HS2 image. People are being fed misleading information which paints this picture as an expensive white elephant it is time people supporting this project started fighting for it!!!
Fully agree that there is need for high-speed rail, but no mention of links to Wales… Is Lord Adonis joining the coalition in neglecting Wales and forgetting the commitment to the High Speed London to Swansea line that Labour gave previously?
We owe it to future generations to meet our economic needs with as little impact on the environment as possible. HS2 is mostly a greenfield development that will have a large impact on local wildlife and landscapes. The super speeds proposed will lead to much higher levels of CO2 emissions per journey. The money required would be much more wisely spent on track electrification to reduce the amount of carbon-based fuel being consumed by trains. For the sake of our children and their children, we must fully and fairly examine all of the alternatives before commiting to HS2. The evidence is that Lord Adonis failed to do this and the present administration has done nothing to address this omission. HS2 belongs to the thinking of the nineteen century, where all that mattered was making money. Today the public is far more environmentally aware and the political parties must come to terms with this and put the environment higher up the agenda.
As may of the anti-HS2 commentators on this site have made so eloquently clear, the arguments FOR HS2 are either flawed and in most cases based on unproven assumptions. The real tragedy of this proposal is that it is being doggedly pushed though by the government at a time when the most basic essential services are being cut and dismantled. So as one commentator points out a few rich buisness men (earning over £80K a year) can get to Birmingham 10 minutes faster. Meanwhile we are being sold the concept of a BIG SOCIETY which is a thin cover for having to help ourselves since services which were previously provided to all and paid for out of our taxes are being slashed. Instead the government, with the full suport of the Labour party, is going to spend OUR MONEY on a project which will benefit only a rich few – maybe. Because it is highly probable that this project will stall at some point and fail to complete and then we’ll be left with a scar across the face of the country and nothing but a huge bill to pay. The fact that Ed Milliband “supports the plans enthusiatically” HS2 is quite honestly SHAMEFUL. The fact that he is so keen to put his and the Labour Party’s name to a policy which will be of no benefit to the country as a whole, is designed to benefit a rich few and will cost the rest of us BILLIONS that could be much better spent on services we really need, completely beggars belief. STOP HS2 – it is an immoral policy designed to line the pockets of large building enterprises and is nothing but a vanity project for the government.
the ratio of 10:1 against HS2 so far in your comments demonstrates that at last the taxpayer is becoming better informed as to the massive waste of his/her money this project of HS2 from somewhere near Birmingham to somewhere near London represents.
Most people in favour of HS2 are simply not aware of the REAL facts. On the face of it, a High Speed Rail that will cut journey times and relieve congestion would be a proposal welcomed by all, the problem is this proposal doesn’t but most people don’t understand that. Unless told otherwise, most people will assume (as I did) that as we are spending £400 million on a fantastic redevelopment of New Street Station, that this is the perfect time to include platforms for HS2 but no, this is not the case, HS2 will stop at a brand new station to be built in Curzon St!! Which is about 20 minutes walk from the centre (exactly the amount of time saved on a faster journey!), so until the line is extended to the North (about another 30 years), passengers will have the inconvenience of carrying bags across the city and changing stations to get a connection to just about anywhere else. We are told HS2 will stop at Birmingham Airport/International, it doesn’t, it will stop at another brand new station at Water Orton, at least 20 minutes drive from Birmingham Airport (again the time saved on a faster journey is lost). So we have a fast train that almost goes to Birmingham City Centre and almost goes to our airport but not quite. For European journeys it is the same, as HS2’s London stop is Euston, not St Pancras, which would be the most sensible to connect with HS1. However, since this was pointed out to the government, they have agreed to include a spur that will connect with Crossrail, so with a few changes, you will still be able to get to St. Pancras and connect with HS1, although this might not be terribly convenient. There will also be a spur to Heathrow, which makes sense. Both of these spurs have been added to the plans and apparently come with no extra cost to the tax pay (maybe they will be built by the big society or volunteers!). HS2 sounds like a good idea, but when you look at the details, you find that most parts of the plans are badly designed and fail to use the most basic common sense to make good use of the vast amounts of money. To add insult to injury, if HS2 goes ahead, the great commuter service that we currently have on the Birmingham New St. to Euston line will be CUT by 3 trains an hour!!!! The reason for cutting the commuter service will be a) to justify HS2 and b) there won’t be enough capacity at Euston to take both HS2 and the commuter trains from New St. I doubt most people in favour of HS2 are aware of any of the points I have mentioned above as this does not seem to be widely reported. The people that seem to have been given the least information on the proposals of HS2 seem to be the passenger/commuter, who also happen to be the tax payers who will pay for it! I am afraid the majority of commuters (me included) will have longer and worse journeys because of HS2, not the reverse.
Lord Adonis was the man who wondered why he could not buy a cup of coffee at 8 pm on Southampton Station. Did he not realise that there were no passengers about at that time of night? Does he not know that rail costs five to six times as much as equivalent road transport per passenger or tonne-mile? Is he not aware that HS2 out to Manchester and Leeds will cost £40b when the trains and market price adjustment factor are included – £670 for every man woman and child in the land. Does he not realise that 99% of us will use HS2 less than once a year? Does he not know that the economic analysis for HS2 depends on laughably high passenger forecasts and on the assumption that a business man’s time, valued at £40 per hour is assumed to be entirely wasted when on a train? Is the man barking? The Government must be for it is even now spending £1.6m per month on this nonsense. Paul Withrington (Transport Watch)
All the “pro” arguments are nothing but optimistic rhetoric. Who but an idiot would spend 17 billion to cut 15 minutes off the London to Birmingham time? And aren’t we broke?
HS2 is a prime example of the great disconnect between politicians (in Lord Adonis’ case an unelected one) and the ordinary electorate. Rather like the Big Society, it is a vanity project which will not be completed for many years and for which my children currently aged 11 and 13 will still have to pay for when they reach adulthood. What is the point of the sacrifices being made to bring down the deficit if our generation is merely adding to it? £1 billion is being spent in this Parliament alone before a single piece of track is laid.
I am stunned that Labour is supporting HS2. If built it will only be used by those that can afford the high prices of the tickets (- well above first class) so only the privileged & elitist classes will ever use. In Spain (who has the largest high speed rail network outside China) only 2% of all journeys are made on high spped lines. Still at least our MP’s wont bev able to use on expenses.
We need higher speed railways with greater capacity between all our main cities adn not just the few that HS2 will serve. It is pleasing that such large sums are being considered for investment but it would be folly to direct it all to the proposed HS2 project. We have many more pressing needs including electriffcation of many inter city lines, station upgrades, improvements to commuter services not to mention much needed investment in our roads and cycleways. I can’t help feeling that if £35 bilion is spent of HS2 we will saddle our chldren, not just with a gigantic debt, but someting they don’t really need. Let us concentrate on improving thsoe railways we actually need and use.
could critics of hs2 please put some meat on the bones of their argument by providing backup to the statements you are making. firstly the fact that high speed rail has been and continues to be built in many many countries suggests that it is a good thing overall. transport is just a means to an end most people do not travel for the sake of it. they travel to go somehwere and this generates economic activity which is usually greater then the revenue from ticket sales so even if so called subsidy is required the sum gain to the economy is greater. hs2 has a benefit to cost ratio of 2 to 1 so is far better value then the oft mooted very expensive upgrades such as west coast. it is almost laughable to suggest that all these countries that are investing in high speed rail are all incorrect. and to suggest that it is victorian technology is equally disingenious. after all the car and the plane were invented over 100 years ago. the outmoded forms of transport will be those that rely on ever decreasing fossil fuels. The only part where i agree with critics is that the existing network is mostly victorian and patterns of travel and destinations have changed and therefore it supports the idea of a new line. i mean the so called real facts of hs2 critics arent facts at all just rumours, hints, suggestions and allegations which are mostly unfounded. picking examples from above, there is no evidence that fares will be well above existing first class. and the high speed lines in spain are making serious inroads into the airlines there so where does the 2% figure come from ? and the same flawed argument about the time savings i am surprised people can still be bothered trotting that one out over and over when it is not correct !!!it is not 15 minutes savings it is at least 30 minutes and HS2 DOES NOT JUST GO TO BIRMINGHAM !!!!! Through trains will operate from day one and hs2 will eventually directly connect to cities further north ! Please read the proposals carefully !!! and as for lisa comments where can one even begin. the terminus is only 1 mile from new street and much closer to moor street. and again non stop trains will likely take a little more then 40 minutes, not 20, or half the current schedule allows !!!! and it wont take 30 years to complete it unless the distortions of hs2 critics are allowed to continue without question ! and THROUGH TRAINS TO THE NORTH WILL RUN and who says that the existing services will be reduced, i have not seen that ??? critics have decided against hs2 for whatever reason and then basically make incorrect staements and make them over and over and over without reference to the actual facts of the proposed project. mostly it is a rant about white elephants and the rich and the fat cats. understandable perhaps in our current climate but not adding anything to the seroius rational debate about hs2 that is needed. the current network is overloaded and despite high fares is carrying more people then ever at the same time that air and car travel is reducing. expanding the current network is expensive, creates massive disruption for years and forces people back to more polluting forms of transport (air and car) and more dangerous car travel (over 2500 lives lost per year why do we accept this carnage !!!!!) so basically we do need hs2 and those of you who are against it need to come up with far more facts then you are doing at the moment
well I think it sounds groovy and cars are stupid,well OK needed by some but on the whole used far too much . Yes its a shame about the countryside ,or is it people’s property value that is the real concern.Surely motorways take up much more space ?