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, 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, 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 Transportsaid: "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 Railwelcomed 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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/hom...-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.