COMMENT
Public transport consultant David Thrower, explores some of the less well-known arguments for HS2. O
ver the past year or so, there has been considerable controversy in some
quarters over whether High Speed 2, the new rail line from London to Birmingham and the North, should be constructed. But the need for the new line has been steadily if quietly growing for the past decade or so, and, whilst UK plc may get by without the route for a little while longer, the longer- term need for the new line is now very obvi- ous to a growing number of people.
Mainland European countries – our eco- nomic competitors as well as partners – have long since recognised that although conventional (100mph-125mph) rail is highly effective over journeys of between an hour and three hours between city cen- tres, it is much less competitive for longer journeys, unless genuinely high speed (180mph-190mph) rail is provided.
They have also recognised that, if you pro- vide high speed rail, you greatly widen the catchment of those rail stations served, be- cause the disadvantages of having to make your way to or from the rail terminal at each end of your former car journey can then be offset by the significantly-shorter intercity rail journey time over the trunk section of the trip. This of course is why France, Italy, Germany and Spain in particular, and of course Japan, have so strongly backed high speed rail.
Lessons from HS1
Some curiously-British and very spurious arguments have been levelled at the cur- rent UK High Speed 2 proposal. Examples include the allegation that High Speed 1
28 | rail technology magazine Aug/Sep 11
Above: The UK risks falling behind those nations who have already been making the investment in high-speed rail.
(the Channel Tunnel Rail Link) was un- necessary. It wasn’t. Mixing Eurostars with South East commuter trains never made sense. By initially ducking the issue, all the UK did was to forgo the benefits between 1994 (when the Tunnel opened) and 2007 (when HS1 opened). And Eurostar patron- age, now already approaching 10 million trips per annum, is likely to climb further when Deutsche Bahn and other operators, perhaps including the new Trenitalia/Veo- lia combine, get their act together and join in with additional through services.
Another decidedly-curious argument of HS2’s opponents has been that “Britain is a crowded island”, and therefore there’s no room for High Speed 2. Britain is indeed a crowded island, as traffic densities on the M25, M1 and M6 in particular amply demonstrate every day. Ironically, the fact that Britain is a crowded island is actually the very reason why we need investment in High Speed 2.
But why high speed? Won’t HS2, as its critics regularly scoff, only cut “just a few minutes” from journey times? Well, in time terms, building High Speed 2 to Manches- ter and Leeds will shift these cities in time- zone terms to about Birmingham, in terms of travel time to London. That will revolu- tionise rail travel between the North and the South. Effectively moving Manches- ter to Birmingham in travel times doesn’t sound like cutting just “a few minutes”.
And eventually extending high speed rail to Glasgow and Edinburgh via Manches- ter will also ultimately give Scotland very fast links to the North West of England,
the West Midlands and London. Connect- ing High Speed 2 to High Speed 1 within London will also enable through services, perhaps only a couple a day to start with, to operate between (say) the West Midlands and Paris. With interchanges at Birming- ham (at the new through station alongside International) and at Lille, a whole new network of interconnecting fast trains will link many of the cities of the UK and West- ern Europe together. It will take time, but this could be the reality by 2025.
Money worries
But can we afford to build HS2? At a time of recession, the much-publicised cost of £34bn has been looked at askance in some quarters. But that figure does not take any account of revenues, nor of the excessively-cautious Treasury-imposed allowance for “optimism bias”, nor of savings in avoided expenditure on other schemes, such as widening the M6 (with an attendant decade of roadworks). Nor does it take account of the opportunities for franchising-out the new line. Nor does it factor-in the benefits to industry and em- ployment, with most of the latter bringing- much-needed new jobs for UK residents.
And hopefully the new passenger trains for HS2 will be built in the UK. Of course there’s always the risk that they won’t. But not building the new line will most certain- ly mean no new UK high-speed trainbuild- ing jobs, whatever.
Expanding the passenger market with HS2 will require many hundreds of new coach- es, and help grow the UK rail market on other routes too.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92