The Manchester of 2011 is somewhat different to that of 1830. With a population of over three million people, the city region of Greater Manchester – comprising the city of Manchester and nine other local authorities – is home to 92,000 businesses and contributes £45 billion a year to the UK economy.
Manchester is the economic powerhouse of the northwest and the fastest-growing economy in the UK outside London. Much of its recent success is due to growth in creative, science and technology based industries. However, future growth in these knowledge-based industries is at risk due to poor connectivity between Manchester and the capital.
It currently takes two hours 15 minutes to travel from London to Manchester, while it takes just one hour 20 minutes to travel from Paris to Brussels. There are over 3,500 miles of high speed track across Europe and this will double in the coming years. Our transport system grows increasingly inadequate while European cities move closer together and increase their advantage over those in the UK.
A high speed line bringing Manchester within 75 minutes of London would have untold benefits for the whole northwest region. With connections onto existing tracks, journey times would drastically decrease to other areas, bringing huge advantages to cities such as Liverpool.
It’s not just cities that stand to benefit from high speed rail.
Strong, economically competitive cities attracting inward investment and growth boost the prosperity of surrounding towns and villages. In addition, evidence from across Europe shows that high speed rail can add significant value to regeneration schemes.
High speed rail isn’t the silver bullet. Labour did much to improve the UK’s transport infrastructure after years of chronic underinvestment and botched privatisation by the Tories. However, much more needs to be done. We need to commit to funding further improvements in local transport infrastructures in cities, towns and villages up and down the country.
High speed rail is an essential component of the long-term economic growth of the UK, boosting connectivity between major cities, bringing more jobs and growth to regions beyond London, halting the expansion of domestic flights and reducing carbon emissions.
We’ve seen what happens in previous decades when pressure is put on public finances – the first spending to be cut was long-term investment in public infrastructure – exactly the kind of investment we need to build a stronger economy.
Labour must commit to the development of high speed rail across the UK in its policy review – from London to Birmingham and on to Manchester in the northwest and Sheffield and Leeds in the east.
We should do all we can to change the legislation the government will be putting forward to go beyond the plans it has outlined to build a line to Birmingham and include the routes to Manchester and Leeds that Labour proposed early in 2010.
Labour is at its best when it is at its boldest. High speed rail must form part of our vision for the future of Britain.
Read Andrew Adonis on why we should back High Speed Two and sign up to the petition #Labour4HighSpeed2
The best time London to M’chaester is 120 mins. With improvements to the current lines this would be closer to 90 mins. So why spend £34 billion pounds on a train line for an improvement of 15 mins. Ticket prices will only be first class and are likely to be in excess of £300 return (unless heavily subsidised by the taxpayer). Current services will be cut back due to the lack of subsidies available as these will be spent on running HS2. The £34 billion cost excludes rolling stock and annual running costs. Utter madness.
“With connections onto existing tracks, journey times would drastically decrease to other areas, bringing huge advantages to cities such as Liverpool” I don’t think so. The so-called ‘classic compatible’ trains which would run onto the existing tracks beyond Birmingham (and eventually Manchester) would actually run more slowly than the current Pendolinos once they got on to the old tracks, as they will not be able to tilt. So journey times between Manchester and Glasgow, for instance, could actually be worse.
Great article. Lets not forget other northern cities that will benefit from HS2 phase 1 from day 1. Liverpool, Glasgow, Preston, Warrington and others. Say YesToHS2
Oh Manchester, please don’t be fooled! £34 billion pounds is an awful lot of money to pay in order to brain drain your good people down to London, just think of how efective a good portion of that money could be invested into your local economy. I have spent the last ten years working with the long term unemployed, we need invesment now in order to support local economies to help people get back into work. Manchester is going to be one of the hardest hit in losing public sector jobs, you need investment now, not in 15 years time. By the time you get some of these alleged jobs, your local economy will have slipped even further behind.
This project will take decades to come to fruition, Manchester needs improvements in its own infra-structure and continuous upgrading of rail,tram and bus systems. At £34 billion( which government projects come in on budget?) this HS2 project will suck out all the monies that could be otherwise spent. By the time the line reaches Manchester almost everybody will be teleconferencing and the BBC will only have technicians in Manchester the rest will have moved back to London! HS2 will get as far as Birmingham become another HS1 with trains every 40mins and be sold off at a thumping loss and Manchester will get on with its own life being successful without the financial millstone that will be HS2.
It is mistaken to say that any growth which HS2 brings to Manchester will benefit the surrounding region. Quite the reverse – the effect is likely to be to pull investment away from other locations. See http://hs2theregionalimpact.wordpress.com/. And what about the Manchester Independent Economic review findings that what the Northwest needs is infrastructure investment within the region, rather than to London, as the latter will reinforce the dominant position of London – http://www.red.mmu.ac.uk/documents/ent_files/strategies/mier_Review.pdf.
The core network up to Leeds and Manchester is said to cost £33b. That is without trains and the market prices adjustment factor. Adding those yields £40b, or £670 for every man woman and child in the land. Multiply that by the population of Manchester and get £300 million. Its pure nonsese to suppoise the proposal will bring jobs. Instead the tax burden will destroy them. The economic analysis depends on assuming a business mans time, valued at £40 per hour, is entirely wasted on a train, upon passenger forecasts that are laughable, requiring a completely full 500-seat train every fife minutes all day in both directions and upon a cascade of other improbables. Philip Hammond knows all that – but sadly he has a “vision”. He should know that when the financial loss is rolled up to the last year of the evaluation period, 2085, then when parliament sits down the effective loss to the nation will be in excess of £150b. Further 99% of the population will use HS2 less than once a year. Those who do will be mainly from houshldes in the top quitle of income. Curerntly they are spending an asonishnig £1.6 million per month on this nonsense (£750m over for years, is the plan). What other proof do we need that Hammond has gone mad? Paul Withrington (Transport Watch)
Reading the article above and the comment. It seems a huge waste of taxpayers money. I vote for Super High Speed Broadband to the whole of UK that is the future this century. Upgrade and improve the existing lines. Our children will then thank us for not leaving them a huge dept for them to pay for. Lets face it they tuition fees to pay for and us in our old age along with hospital fees and care when this Government have disbanded the NSH.
No,Hammond has not gone mad,he’s just in the wrong job,and has to preach the mad gospel of his predecessor.Adonis should find another,more credible religion without dogma.
Sigh. Please note, the £34bn is not for the current scheme. That figure is entirely related to a separate Network Rail investigation. The current High Speed 2 is closer to £20bn, over £15 years or so. Not much really (in the grand scheme of things) and the eventual economic benefits are clear. That last poster is a massive scaremonger, and nothing else. Transport Watch are well known for being anti-rail and the benefits it would bring. Thankfully, they’re not the policy makers.
The cost of the project is spread out over a number of years, the dft says this is around £3 billion a year. This is a critical project for the UK and it will not also benefit the major cities but the space freed up on the existing lines (by removing the intercity trains) will be of a huge benefit to local communities and towns where there will be more local services and more freight (which means less HG’s on the roads). This project is needed lets hope that the NIMBYism does not destroy it.
Ivan Parry I’m sorry to say is bang on. Also the article quotes the Thalys service from Paris to Brussels. These are two world Cities! One is the home of the EU and the other the capital of a P5 country. I work in Manchester and it’s citizens are a proud bunch, but it is no world city. I live just 30 miles south in Crewe and already there are well over a hundred London commuters traveling daily. A HS link will not help Manchester at all. It may in fact convert it into a London dormitory town, something Crewe is well on the way to being.
@David Peacock:” I work in Manchester and it’s citizens are a proud bunch, but it is no world city. I live just 30 miles south in Crewe and already there are well over a hundred London commuters traveling daily. A HS link will not help Manchester at all.” I work in Manchester too and live south of city in close proximity to the WCML southern approaches High Speed Rail (HSR) as an exclusively domestic project, linking the UK provinces to London, doesn’t really function effectively and I can see why the new line attracts criticism if viewed from that narrow perspective. But HSR should be viewed as a pan-European concept primarily designed to link UK provinces not with London but with the rest of Europe, which is the economic vehicle most capable of driving long term sustainable economic prosperity for future generations. If I ever board a HS service out of Manchester, the very last place I’ll be heading is LONDON!
so the critics are out in force again hoping that by stating the same incorrect statements all the time hoping that by doing so these will somehow actually become fact !!!! lets deal with the wild statements one by one. – where is the proposal that states that there could be a reduction in journey times of 25% on the existing networ through upgrades. we recently spent over £10 billion on the west coast line and we didnt get that we got increases from 110 to 125 mph and admittedly more 125 mph running. in the 1970’s electrics ran at 110 max for a best london glasgow time of 5 hours. – it is NOT a 15 minute savings it is over 30 and the primary reason for hs2 is capacity. The trains do not just go to birmingham, through trains will run from day one. the birmingham terminus is not in the wilds, it is less then a mile from new street and near moor street and the tram network is being expanded. the tickets will not all be over £300 and they will not only be filled with bonus crazy fat cat rich vanity project seeking banking executives ! and possibly the pedolinos might be quicker due to tilt to glasgow from manchester so it is good that they will still run isnt it !!!! the point is the journey from london to manchester and birmingham would be slashed so any through glasgow/preston/blackpool/liverpool services would be far faster on the hs2 leg. and have all the critics missed the part about hs2 generating £2 FOR EVERY £1 SPENT !!!!!! This makes it excellent value for the taxpayer certainly better then putting it in the bank !!!!! the existing trains are full and cannot take any more passengers off the roads and yes air too for scottish journeys and european ones too of course but the critics like to ignore those as they ignore all the worldwide evidence about the benefits hsr can have the growth it can bring and the traffic it can purloin from air and yes road. the evidence is out there !!!!! along with the truth. !!!!