HS2 Given Govt Approval

[efq]

Full Steam Ahead As HS2 Given Govt Approval

A new high-speed rail network between London and Birmingham has been given the go-ahead by the Government.A written ministerial statement has now been tabled and Transport Secretary Justine Greening will speak to MPs in Parliament this afternoon.
The new HS2 project will cut journeys between the two cities from the current time of one hour and 24 minutes to just 49 minutes.

But the London to Birmingham segment is expected to cost £17bn and extending it to Manchester and Leeds a further £15bn.
"High Speed 2 is a scheme to deliver hugely enhanced rail capacity and connectivity between Britain's major conurbations," she said.
"It is the largest transport infrastructure investment in the UK for a generation, and, with the exception of High Speed 1, is the first major new railway line since the Victorian era."
The Transport Secretary said she had been "mindful that we must safeguard the natural environment as far as possible, both for the benefit of those enjoying our beautiful countryside today and for future generations".
The route,which cuts through areas of outstanding natural beauty (http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/in-your-area), has provoked criticism from locals.
One of those areas is The Chilterns in Buckinghamshire, where residents have organised a campaign group to fight the proposals.

When schools are closed, teachers are losing their jobs... it is just unviable," said resident Alison Kenny.
"I can't believe we're still here having this conversation and the Government is still going ahead. It's just a vanity project. It's nothing more."
Steve Roddick, chief officer ofThe Chilterns Conservation Board (http://www.chilternsaonb.org/), said: "It looks like this is all about how do you get to London more quickly.
"It's absolutely not the way to provide prosperity in the Midlands and the North, to make all these great cities suburbs of London. And that's the way it begins to look."
The plans have also divided politicians with Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan, who represents affected Chesham and Amersham, previously threatening to quit over the issue.
As a compromise, Ms Greening has announced extra tunnelling on some parts of the route including Amersham, Ruislip, Greatworth, Aston le Walls, Wendover and Long Itchington Wood.
Trains are expected to start running along the new line in 2026. It will then be extended in a Y-shape to serve Leeds and Manchester, with reduced travel times to Liverpool and Glasgow by 2032.

TheDepartment for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/)said: "HS2 is not just about getting between London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester more quickly, but bringing faster services and many more seats to towns and cities well beyond the HS2 network.
"It would work just like a motorway. No-one uses a motorway to get all the way from their front door to their final destination, but they use it because it offers high capacity and faster services - precisely what HS2 will offer rail passengers."
Union leaders and business leaders have supported the project, arguing that it will be a boost to the economy and help bring the country's rail network up-to-date and in line with international competitors.
The proposals still need to be approved by Parliament, but today's announcement by Justine Greening is a major step towards implementation.
Lucy James from theCampaign for High Speed Rail (http://www.campaignforhsr.com/)welcomed the move and said it would deliver "more seats, more trains, more jobs and more growth" for Britain.
Former transport secretary Lord Adonis told Sky News the Government must also give a firm commitment the line will be extended to Leeds, Manchester and beyond.
"The Government really must get a move on - it is nearly two years since I announced the high-speed plan, they spent two years consulting, a consultation which could have taken six months," he said.
Lord Adonis said he supports "proper compensation" for residents directly affected.
"The rule with high speed rail is everyone wants the stations but no one wants the lines, well the line has to go somewhere so ultimately the Government has to take the decision," he added.http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16145716

Waste of money, no debate?

[Ajthedragon]

I'm all for it.

It makes use more appealing for TNC's to be based here and thus makes us more globally competitive. It should also be good for the environment if it stops people making wastefuldomesticflights.

It's also a long-term investment so it could be argued it therefore isn't a waste of money, plus you must consider that in that time we will have spent more on international aid. The timing may not be great, but that said construction won't start as yet so there is plenty of time to reconsider.

[Technologic]

Our rail infrastructure is awful, go to any Western/Northern European country and their systems are just so much better. About time we caught up really

[beth]

i'm up for it, mainly cause it's close to me and i've used hs1 loads of time when i was at uni last year and it was fantastic.

(apart from when it snowed and i was stuck on a train for 5 hours.)

[-:Undertaker:-]

An absolute waste of money, it joins the list of other 'great ideas' from our politicians from the Dome to the Olympics to HS2.

Why is it an absolute waste of money? here's why;

- It will only cut down a small portion of journey time.
- The fact the private sector is not willing to fund this project should send alarm bells ringing.
- Due to its immense cost in building it, the tickets will be astronomically high and it (the rail line we paid for) will only be used by the wealthy.
- If tickets are not astronomically high, that means its being subsidised which means again, the less well off paying for the better off.
- It destroys some of the best parts of our countryside which haven't yet been destroyed by our 1960s-built towns and motorways.
- By the time the project is finished it will be out of date.
- Like all other government funded projects, its not value-for-money and is 99% likely to have costs soar (see Olympics, Dome).
- The notion of a property owning society is again destroyed by the fact that government is simply going to remove people via force from their own homes.
- The project assumes a high amount of passenger travel which is unrealistic especially with low cost airlines.

So like all things, people will say 'oh but this is a great idea moving forward etc' but in reality its costing £35bn odd of money we don't have and if we did have could be spent on better things such as giving a tax break to business around this country who create jobs yet whom are struggling under the burden of increasing taxation and regulation which pours like slurry out of Whitehall and Brussels daily.

But then that suggestion isn't rooted in vanity like HS2 is, so I doubt it'll be popular on this forum or amongst the politicians.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg085NJs7Lk

[-:Undertaker:-]

I only just read, but a response from the TaxPayers' Alliance;

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2012/01/economic-case-hs2-isnt-credible.html


The Government today gave the the go-ahead for the £32 billion HS2 high speed London to Birmingham rail project.

We have been one of the most active critics of the proposals, following detailed research into the plans.

Key findings are:

- HS2 will be enormously expensive, costing well over £1,000 per family, but only a fortunate minority will benefit

- This is a railway for the rich but paid for by everyone. HS2 assumes average passenger income of £70,000 and relies on a 27 per cent over inflation rise in fares (source: High speed rail)

- Under those plans, cities like Coventry and Stoke on Trent will see a worse service and there will be a number of other capacity problems (source: HS2 capacity analysis)

- Ministers have pledged to address some of those problems, but their pledges and other schemes needed to make HS2 work as advertised could see the cost to taxpayers rise from £17.1 billion to £45.5 billion (source: The hidden costs of HS2) We have challenged the Government to set out the true cost of the scheme or be more honest about some of the consequences of HS2

- The public are not in favour of HS2. A YouGov poll on spending cuts that we commissioned found 48 per cent of respondents supported cancelling the project with only 34 per cent opposed to such a move (source: Spending poll 2011)

- Business leaders are also sceptical. We organised an open letter from business leaders and economic commentators including Simon Wolfson and Nigel Lawson attacking the scheme as a “vanity project” and a “white elephant” (source: Letter)

- 38 per cent of members of the Institute of Directors believe that the public spending required to build the new line would represent poor value for money, compared with only 30 per cent who think it would represent good value (Source: IoD member survey)

- Other campaign groups including the Countryside Alliance, the RAC Foundation and the Green Party (including UKIP) are also sceptical. We organised a briefing where they made the case against the new line (watch: Briefing video)

[Mathew]

The announcement of this has annoyed me so much. How on earth can the government justify spending £34 billion on a railway line which will benefit such a small minority of people? In a country with over 60 billion people, there is such a tiny minority of people who will use this service, yet such a large chunk of taxpayers' money is being used. The Mail have reported that it's something ridiculous like £5,300 per inch of the proposed extra tunnel. Just why?

If I wanted to travel from Leeds to London, it will take me 1 hour 20 instead of 2 hours 20. Perhaps it's just me, but once you're travelling it doesn't really matter how long the journey is. People make the journey regardless of how long it takes; if someone is set on visiting London (whether it's for business or pleasure), they do it. In that respect, if the strongest argument for HS2 is "it will cut travel times", then it's not a very good justification for £34 billion.

More than anything though, I'd rather we invest money in a new form of transport. This isn't due to be fully completed until 2033, by which time I'd expect technology to have advanced even further that rail travel by modern means is a thing of the past. The "High Speed" of HS2 probably won't be so high speed after all.

Oh and yes, we're back to the beginning where the country is borrowing more than ever. Why do they still feel the need to increase this figure? A Conservative government should be conserving money for things that really matter. This isn't progress or development, it's a stupid decision by a mind-boggling group of people who are blinded by their position and fail to see things from a rational perspective. Absurd decision. Ridiculous.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh and yes, we're back to the beginning where the country is borrowing more than ever. Why do they still feel the need to increase this figure? A Conservative government should be conserving money for things that really matter. This isn't progress or development, it's a stupid decision by a mind-boggling group of people who are blinded by their position and fail to see things from a rational perspective. Absurd decision. Ridiculous.

Oh indeed. Now do you Conservatives get it when I say that this is not a conservative government no matter how much you wish that it would be?

[Mathew]

Oh indeed. Now do you Conservatives get it when I say that this is not a conservative government no matter how much you wish that it would be?
Sure. I was just going to say that "they're doing a lot more than the last government ever did", but following today's news of HS2 I'm not too sure. Under the last government, money was being thrown about left right and centre (take BSF, for example). I thought the Conservatives had stopped that tosh, but it seems like they're throwing it at transport rather than education. Such a shame.

[Grig]

They need to sort out their current lines with sky-high prices. It's ridiculous- I can take a 3 hour plane ride to an international country for a cheaper price than I travel from the North of England to London. The current train services need serious sorting out before you go out and waste more government money on new lines. Furthermore, do we really need to be making such lines when the government has got little money to spare, there are other fundamental economic and more importantly social issues that have not been addressed. Infrastructure in England is lacking behind some other major countries and without tackling fundamental issues first, they won't get anywhere.

[Jordy]

I'm not sure this is the best to approach building a high speed railway, the route is a bit dubious, I'd be tempted to go through Heathrow or something but a line needs to be built anyway.

The current West Coast mainline (Virgin and London Midland) will of reached capacity in just 10 years time, it's practically at it now. They'll be over-crowding on every train, the economy will no doubt suffer seeing as prices will rocket even further (Demand will far outdo supply). I'm yet to see a credible alternative to building a new railway between London and Birmingham, all I see is criticism of the current scheme, no solutions (Much like Labour attacking the coalition over the economy). Additional capacity is the main reason it is being built, not to shave minutes off the journey time.

[Mathew]

Additional capacity is the main reason it is being built, not to shave minutes off the journey time.
Surely they'd be better adding additional train carriages and increasing the length of train station platforms if that was the case? I'm sure that wouldn't go anywhere near £34 billion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not sure this is the best to approach building a high speed railway, the route is a bit dubious, I'd be tempted to go through Heathrow or something but a line needs to be built anyway.

The current West Coast mainline (Virgin and London Midland) will of reached capacity in just 10 years time, it's practically at it now. They'll be over-crowding on every train, the economy will no doubt suffer seeing as prices will rocket even further (Demand will far outdo supply). I'm yet to see a credible alternative to building a new railway between London and Birmingham, all I see is criticism of the current scheme, no solutions (Much like Labour attacking the coalition over the economy). Additional capacity is the main reason it is being built, not to shave minutes off the journey time.

If we need a HSR route then the private sector will build one, if not as is the case as it stands - then it points out that this is simply not economically feesible or sound in the slightest which is why this entire vanity project relies on taxpayer money because its essentially a white elephant (a big one at that, £40bn+).


all I see is criticism of the current scheme, no solutions (Much like Labour attacking the coalition over the economy)

Labour attack the coalition over the economy for party political gain, not because they disagree with one another.

Whatever 'the solutions' are, it certainly doesn't involve splashing out £40bn+ of taxpayer money on a vanity scheme which the wealthy will only be able to afford.

[efq]

I think people are getting too impatient.
And I don't think it's so hard to add a few carriages to a train so this is got me mind blown. :s

I really dislike how the government are forcing people to leave their houses so they can stick tracks there instead.


The UK is ****** up and we all know it. Well so is Europe so it's no biggy.

[Jordy]

Surely they'd be better adding additional train carriages and increasing the length of train station platforms if that was the case? I'm sure that wouldn't go anywhere near £34 billion.Indeed this has been looked into and the line was upgraded in 2000 causing misery for years on the route at great expense and little improvement. Further improvements have been looked into, similar to you suggest (additional carriages and longer platforms) and that came out about £20 billion and wouldn't provide sufficient capacity at the end of it all unlike High Speed 2. There's all the studies out there and none of them seem to have another solution other than building a new line. Bare in mind practically all the railways in this country were built by the victorians, there's only so much you can upgrade them (and that's what we've been doing for the past century), it's old infrastructure.


If we need a HSR route then the private sector will build one, if not as is the case as it stands - then it points out that this is simply not economically feesible or sound in the slightest which is why this entire vanity project relies on taxpayer money because its essentially a white elephant (a big one at that, £40bn+).



Labour attack the coalition over the economy for party political gain, not because they disagree with one another.

Whatever 'the solutions' are, it certainly doesn't involve splashing out £40bn+ of taxpayer money on a vanity scheme which the wealthy will only be able to afford.Not so sure this is a vanity project, as you pointed out, the public aren't exactly head over heels about High Speed 2 and it was actually a Labour initiative continued by the coalition so it'd be them getting the credit anyway. By the time it's built in 15 years time anyway no one will be praising David Cameron for it, the person who began the project will be long forgotten about, I can't even remember if the project was began under Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. It's hardly doing the Conservatives much favours either as it's running through many of their key constituencies.

I really do feel its a project of necessity and to allow economic growth in the future, the infrastructure needs to be up to it, not over-crowded like it currently is across the network in a situation bound to get only worse. I really don't see any other decent solution to the over-crowding issue between London and Birmingham. It's the old railway infrastructure and lack of investment which means rail fares are so high yet still overcrowded, the demand well outstrips supply.

Edit: How come spaces are removed between words whenever I make posts on HxFs these days, swear it's not just me? :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not so sure this is a vanity project, as you pointed out, the public aren't exactly head over heels about High Speed 2 and it was actually a Labour initiative continued by the coalition so it'd be them getting the credit anyway. By the time it's built in 15 years time anyway no one will be praising David Cameron for it, the person who began the project will be long forgotten about, I can't even remember if the project was began under Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. It's hardly doing the Conservatives much favours either as it's running through many of their key constituencies.

Labour also started the white elephant that is the Olympics, but that didn't stop Dave cashing in on the hype..

http://answers.bettor.com/images/Articles/thumbs/extralarge/UK-Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-visits-Olympic-Park-London-Olympics-2012-122461.jpg


I really do feel its a project of necessity and to allow economic growth in the future, the infrastructure needs to be up to it, not over-crowded like it currently is across the network in a situation bound to get only worse. I really don't see any other decent solution to the over-crowding issue between London and Birmingham. It's the old railway infrastructure and lack of investment which means rail fares are so high yet still overcrowded, the demand well outstrips supply.

And again, why is there lack of investment? because there's nothing profitable to invest in. If there was such a bright future predicted for these rail systems then private firms would invest in them because they would recieve a return on their investment. But as with everything government does, if the 'investment' fails (as it always does under government) then who picks up the tab? the taxpayer.

Private investors and firms won't touch this with a barge pole, and rightly so. But the taxpayer hasn't a choice.

[Jordy]

Labour also started the white elephant that is the Olympics, but that didn't stop Dave cashing in on the hype..

http://answers.bettor.com/images/Articles/thumbs/extralarge/UK-Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-visits-Olympic-Park-London-Olympics-2012-122461.jpg



And again, why is there lack of investment? because there's nothing profitable to invest in. If there was such a bright future predicted for these rail systems then private firms would invest in them because they would recieve a return on their investment. But as with everything government does, if the 'investment' fails (as it always does under government) then who picks up the tab? the taxpayer.

Private investors and firms won't touch this with a barge pole, and rightly so. But the taxpayer hasn't a choice.No business could ever raise £32bn to invest in a project, regardless of what it was. Only a few firms in the world have that sort of money lying around and you needn't think you could borrow/raise anywhere near such a colossal sum of money, especially in this economic climate (Although even in good times, £32bn is ambitious). It's simply too big of a project for the private sector, I'd be interested in seeing examples where a business (or group of them) have invested such large sums of money. Major infrastructure should be down to the government, otherwise it won't exist.

Virgin Group did offer to turn the East Coast mainline into a high speed railway if it won the franchise but it was rejected. No doubt would of been a much smaller project but still likely to be around £5 Billion, just to show the willingness for business to invest in High Speed Rail, but obviously like I pointed out, this is out of the private sectors hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_Kingdom#Virgin_Trains.27_ ECML_bid

[-:Undertaker:-]

No business could ever raise £32bn to invest in a project, regardless of what it was. Only a few firms in the world have that sort of money lying around and you needn't think you could borrow/raise anywhere near such a colossal sum of money, especially in this economic climate (Although even in good times, £32bn is ambitious). It's simply too big of a project for the private sector, I'd be interested in seeing examples where a business (or group of them) have invested such large sums of money. Major infrastructure should be down to the government, otherwise it won't exist.

I'm not talking about one firm financing the entire route as that is obviously unviable if not impossible. If any of the rail links or portions of the proposed track are viable economically, then the private sector can step in and put their money where their mouth is and invest (like the example you've given below) in High Speed Rail. It is immoral and wrong to force the taxpayers of this country to commit to building a rail track which is not economically viable and which I assume is later going to be turned over to private firms (along with constant subsidy by the government to pay them to manage the rail line).

Even if the scheme was deemed viable I would still be against any government funding, but thats another issue altogether.


Virgin Group did offer to turn the East Coast mainline into a high speed railway if it won the franchise but it was rejected. No doubt would of been a much smaller project but still likely to be around £5 Billion, just to show the willingness for business to invest in High Speed Rail, but obviously like I pointed out, this is out of the private sectors hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_Kingdom#Virgin_Trains.27_ ECML_bid

Virgin however has shown that the scheme appears viable by the fact it is or was willing to invest in High Speed Rail on that route, the same cannot be said for HS2 because it is unviable. If it were viable for arguments sake, then Virgin along with the other rail companies (or even general investors) would look at the project and go ahead with it. But as I keep saying, as its not viable thats why it hasn't happened - and thats why as usual, the taxpayer is forced to put their money at risk in a game they will surely lose in as they always do. In other words; the cow with the never ending supply of milk.

Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted the Dome should have paid for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted to lengthen the lifespans of our bankrupt banks (aka the bailout) should have paid for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted the Olympics should pay for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who want HS2 should pay for it themselves.

As it turns out, none of them are ever willing to put their money on the line for the simple reason that they know the chances of a profitable return are nil.

[RyRy]

Why the **** they have done this I have no idea. Invest in the current rail system, and maybe invest in some roads and buses as well, perhaps even make transport a bit more affordable instead of creating a ****** city link between Birmingham & London which yeah sure people will use but come on, how much time will it shave off? I mean they're probably paying 1bn per minute cut yano?

But even then, what about all the unemployment going on? I wonder how many jobs that'll make, or better yet I wonder whether the company making the track will even be British, bet it's just another ploy to invest more money into another country eh?!

[Jordy]

I'm not talking about one firm financing the entire route as that is obviously unviable if not impossible. If any of the rail links or portions of the proposed track are viable economically, then the private sector can step in and put their money where their mouth is and invest (like the example you've given below) in High Speed Rail. It is immoral and wrong to force the taxpayers of this country to commit to building a rail track which is not economically viable and which I assume is later going to be turned over to private firms (along with constant subsidy by the government to pay them to manage the rail line).

Even if the scheme was deemed viable I would still be against any government funding, but thats another issue altogether.



Virgin however has shown that the scheme appears viable by the fact it is or was willing to invest in High Speed Rail on that route, the same cannot be said for HS2 because it is unviable. If it were viable for arguments sake, then Virgin along with the other rail companies (or even general investors) would look at the project and go ahead with it. But as I keep saying, as its not viable thats why it hasn't happened - and thats why as usual, the taxpayer is forced to put their money at risk in a game they will surely lose in as they always do. In other words; the cow with the never ending supply of milk.

Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted the Dome should have paid for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted to lengthen the lifespans of our bankrupt banks (aka the bailout) should have paid for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted the Olympics should pay for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who want HS2 should pay for it themselves.

As it turns out, none of them are ever willing to put their money on the line for the simple reason that they know the chances of a profitable return are nil.The scheme has been deemed viable and economic, hence why they are going ahead with it (Rather than so called vanity reasons which don't stack up). Realistically I cannot see how a £32bn railway project could be funded by the private sector, no matter how it is divided up between firms and financed by various banks, the money just isn't there. I personally doubt a project of this scale has ever been carried out by the private sector for the reasons I've outlined. The government has to build some major infrastructure as otherwise it simply won't come about, infrastructure is vital to the economy after all. That is why even the French and Japanese high speed rail systems which have shown to be great successes have not been funded by the private sector either.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The scheme has been deemed viable and economic, hence why they are going ahead with it (Rather than so called vanity reasons which don't stack up). Realistically I cannot see how a £32bn railway project could be funded by the private sector, no matter how it is divided up between firms and financed by various banks, the money just isn't there. I personally doubt a project of this scale has ever been carried out by the private sector for the reasons I've outlined. The government has to build some major infrastructure as otherwise it simply won't come about, infrastructure is vital to the economy after all.

The scheme has been deemed viable and economic by the government? is this the same government which believes the Olympics is a viable project? I am sorry but the private sector could finance this scheme (or the profitable parts) if it were to be profitable and viable, which it just isn't. The railway system of this country in itself needs major overhaul as it stands as even now some lines are still subsidised while they are owned by 'private companies' which aren't private at all. The truth is that, before long, the airline industry will continue to expand and will crush this white elephant so that not only will the taxpayer be paying for it in the first place, it will be forever paying for its repairs/upgrades of an expensive unviable railway line which serves no economical purpose.

If this is going to be a successful project and is not a vanity project, why don't we simply link every major city with HSR?


That is why even the French and Japanese high speed rail systems which have shown to be great successes have not been funded by the private sector either.

Because as with France, the government subsidies industry such as rail heavily (hence why France is facing a looming industrial crisis similar to our own in the 1970s) and Japan, well just look at their debt.

This government has no excuse for dumping this £40bn+ turd on my generation just so that the wealthy can travel in style.

[Jordy]

The scheme has been deemed viable and economic by the government? is this the same government which believes the Olympics is a viable project? I am sorry but the private sector could finance this scheme (or the profitable parts) if it were to be profitable and viable, which it just isn't. The railway system of this country in itself needs major overhaul as it stands as even now some lines are still subsidised while they are owned by 'private companies' which aren't private at all. The truth is that, before long, the airline industry will continue to expand and will crush this white elephant so that not only will the taxpayer be paying for it in the first place, it will be forever paying for its repairs/upgrades of an expensive unviable railway line which serves no economical purpose.

If this is going to be a successful project and is not a vanity project, why don't we simply link every major city with HSR?



Because as with France, the government subsidies industry such as rail heavily (hence why France is facing a looming industrial crisis similar to our own in the 1970s) and Japan, well just look at their debt.

This government has no excuse for dumping this £40bn+ turd on my generation just so that the wealthy can travel in style.Well I'm sure if you looked into it, the plan is to link the major cities on HSR yes, it's likely by the end of this parliament, extensions to Manchester, East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds will be pushed through. Anyway it does provide benefits to other cities anyway if you were to look into it. For instance a train from London to Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow could travel on High Speed 2 London to Birmingham before transferring on to traditional track for the rest. Therefore providing benefit to not just Birmingham but cutting down times to other cities too (particularly in the North-West).

You're talking like it's the 90s, the airline industry will not crush the railways at all, for the past decade the railways have been crushing the domestic airline industry (and international to extent, think London to Paris). On the likes of Birmingham to Glasgow, London to Manchester, the number of flights has drastically decreased in the past decade and the number of trains dramatically boosted. High Speed rail will definitely mark the end of flights between London to Manchester it seems. Low-cost airlines aren't as brilliant as they initially seemed with all their additional fees and many taxes, domestic air travel has been on the decrease for along-time and it only continue. The awful leg-room, overly complicated security process which many people find quite stressful and the fact airports aren't in city centres providing additional time and cost to people journeys (unlike rail) mean that in many situations it isn't better. The price of fuel will continue to rise anyway (Regardless of the enormous taxes on it) so air travel will just continue becoming less attractive.

[GoldenMerc]

woo house prices drop.... not