HS2 is a vanity project. The business case will probably stack up in a
few decades, but is highly dubious now. They probably need to
safeguard an alignment, but there's no urgency to actually build it.
Railway operators are distinctly dubious about it, but railway
builders are very keen, unsurprisingly.
There's already a four-track fast railway from London-Rugby (and most
of the way to Crewe), and it is exceedingly rare internationally to
build another pair of tracks in that situation. Instead they should
complete the four-tracking further north (which maybe includes the HS2
alignment into Birmingham)
HS2 just about makes sense as an ultra-high-speed line to
Manchester/Sheffield/Leeds - this would do something markedly faster
than conventional 125mph running. But given what we have already (~2hr
timings), the need isn't exactly pressing.
The Scots would dearly love faster trains to London, but the sensible
thing to achieve that is to build from Scotland southwards (that's
where they can get the biggest journey-time saving). That's probably a
vanity project too, but there's rather fewer people in the way!
Richard
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Simon P J Batterbury
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I have found myself living for the next 6 months in a town very heavily
> affected by the proposed HS2 train route London-B'ham, and listened to many
> views on the project. There are almost no supporters where I live, for sure,
> (100m from the route) and film crews visit frequently to elicit concerns.
>
> The campaign against HS2 looks extremely sophisticated, with some better
> transport planners than those who wrote the reports submitted to the
> government! What are broader views? The analytical case against seems
> strong to my view, hinging on critique of some shonky assumptions made by
> the proponents about carbon reductions, lessened air travel, passenger
> numbers and mode-shifting. The numbers don't stack up yet strangely there is
> support from all three main parties. Is it really a stitch up by consultants
> and the transport industry wanting to siphon off scarce government funds, as
> opponents intimate? Or a well meaning sustainable transport proposal (by
> Labour)?
>
> The idea of a fast train is attractive, even if forecasts are that it will
> increase the primacy of London rather than massively increase employment as
> far away as Scotland when complete. Nothing in Britain ever seems to stop
> the primacy of London though.
>
> If I had a bike and lived in Birmingham, and a job to travel to in London, I
> would be delighted with a new cyling/train option in 10 years or so. However
> travelling slowly is not always an objectional or bad thing.
>
>
> There is a major conference about it this Saturday in Stoneleigh Park,
> featuring some well know transport activists and analysts including Wolmar
> and Whitelegg. http://stophs2.org/convention
> http://stophs2.org/news/1290-programme-convention
>
> The local analysis
> http://www.wendover-hs2.org.uk/
> and especially
> http://www.wendover-hs2.org.uk/Financial%20analysis%20of%20HS2%20Final.pdf
>
>
>
> Dr. Simon Batterbury, Associate Professor, (on research leave) Dept. of
> Resource Management and Geography, University of Melbourne, 3010 VIC,
> Australia http://www.simonbatterbury.net/ Director, Office for Environmental
> Programs (on leave) http://www.environment.unimelb.edu.au
|