HS2 - The true reason why it's necessary

[Saxondale]

I'm becoming increasingly more frustrated by public opposition to the proposed HS2 rail line. 

 

I'm not annoyed that people oppose it, more that much of the opposition appears to be borne out of a complete lack of understanding of the rationale, largely because of a lack of understanding by the mainstream media outlets that report on it.

 

Clearly, HS2 represents a vast capital investment in a single transport infrastructure project. The media seems to be portraying some idea that HS2 is about reducing train journey times by a few minutes between London and other major cities. This is simply not what HS2 is about.

 

The railway system currently costs a vast amount of public money, as well as consistent passenger ticket price increases, to sustain.The simple fact is that passenger transport on the railways is no longer profitable.

 

Another given is that Britain's railway network currently runs at full capacity, on an aged infrastructure that requires vast amounts of money to maintain.

 

The most profitable operation on Britain's railways in the transportation of freight, but there is simply no more capacity to carry any more.

 

The only solution is to substantially expand the trunk infrastructure by building another main line.

 

This extra capacity is needed to help generate the extra revenue required to make the entire network sustainable and allow passenger ticket prices to be kept at something like a sensible level. Not to mention the amount of lorries that this will take of the roads and the associated environmental benefits.

 

Those proposing that capital expenditure on the railways would be better spent on several smaller upgrading projects simply don't understand the reason why expansion is, quite literally, crucial for the future of the British railway network. 

 

The key word is freight, regardless of any impression that the mainstream media portray.

[Zingari]

Spending billions to save 30 minutes on a train ride from from London to Brum ? What is there to argue about?

[lavrentis]

Do we in Leicestershire even see any benefit ?? I assume it will run through our county as well

[ADK]

Good point. The country needs a high speed rail network for freight and it is just about the most efficient way to transport goods. I wish they'd just start building it now rather than the inevitable reviews, nimby protests, treehugger protests etc.

[I am Rod Hull]

£50 billion (and you can bet your arse it`ll be £75+ billion) on a rail line in the state this country is in fiscally? 

 

Bat shit crazy...

[Harry - LCFC]

Would upgrading current routes not be a better option? I don't know if it is, I'm just putting it out there. More trains on the busiest lines would be a lot cheaper while still providing the improvements to infrastructure we want.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm becoming increasingly more frustrated by public opposition to the proposed HS2 rail line. 

 

I'm not annoyed that people oppose it, more that much of the opposition appears to be borne out of a complete lack of understanding of the rationale, largely because of a lack of understanding by the mainstream media outlets that report on it.

 

Clearly, HS2 represents a vast capital investment in a single transport infrastructure project. The media seems to be portraying some idea that HS2 is about reducing train journey times by a few minutes between London and other major cities. This is simply not what HS2 is about.

 

The railway system currently costs a vast amount of public money, as well as consistent passenger ticket price increases, to sustain.The simple fact is that passenger transport on the railways is no longer profitable.

 

[...]

 

- The "saving a few minutes" argument was the one exclusively used by those promoting the project (NOT the media), until very recently. Those promoting the project recently moved on to the "need to increase passenger capacity on our outdated Victorian railways". As of today, they have started mentioning freight capacity....you seem to be following track......

 

- Are you employed by one of the train companies, BornBlue, or do you stand to benefit personally from this project in some way? (sorry if I'm being unduly cynical, but you so passionately follow the arguments of those behind the scheme)

 

- Why is passenger rail transport so unprofitable when passenger numbers have been rising rapidly, when we have some of the highest fares in Europe - and when we have the supposed benefits of the greater "efficiency" resulting from privatisation?

 

- If rail travel is such a money-loser, why does the FT say that several train operating companies are making massive profits?:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a04c8138-f1f7-11e1-bba3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2g32WbQNY

 

- Likewise, why does Network Rail report that it made an operating profit of£2.2bn? 

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Network-Rail-full-year-results-2012-13-1da6.aspx 

Others report that its profits rose by 63%....http://www.cityam.com/article/network-rail-profits-surge-63pc

 

- Doesn't the government argue that we simply must cut the deficit? If so, from what areas do you suggest that we should make £50bn of further cuts in order to help our privatised railways, if they are struggling to stay afloat despite charging higher prices than state-owned rail companies like SNCF? Should we slash health, education or defence spending?

 

- If rail is so unprofitable, how come Branson and others are reportedly receiving millions of pounds in dividends? http://www.cityam.com/article/branson-paid-18m-virgin-rail-dividend

[The Year Of The Fox]

Noone cares about getting to London half hour quicker. That's only for pretentious businessmen who if they were anywhere near as important as they'd like people to believe, would have their own helicopter to whisk them down south.

Everyone cares about the ridiculous cost of a train ticket though. Why not spend 30bn somehow making train fares dirt cheap and maybe even efficient??!

I'm not opposed to it as such but there are better ways to improve out oublic transport network whilst spending half the dosh HS2 will cost.

[Zingari]

- The "saving a few minutes" argument was the one exclusively used by those promoting the project (NOT the media), until very recently. Those promoting the project recently moved on to the "need to increase passenger capacity on our outdated Victorian railways". As of today, they have started mentioning freight capacity....you seem to be following track......

 

- Are you employed by one of the train companies, BornBlue, or do you stand to benefit personally from this project in some way? (sorry if I'm being unduly cynical, but you so passionately follow the arguments of those behind the scheme)

 

- Why is passenger rail transport so unprofitable when passenger numbers have been rising rapidly, when we have some of the highest fares in Europe - and when we have the supposed benefits of the greater "efficiency" resulting from privatisation?

 

- If rail travel is such a money-loser, why does the FT say that several train operating companies are making massive profits?:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a04c8138-f1f7-11e1-bba3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2g32WbQNY

 

- Likewise, why does Network Rail report that it made an operating profit of£2.2bn? 

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Network-Rail-full-year-results-2012-13-1da6.aspx

Others report that its profits rose by 63%....http://www.cityam.com/article/network-rail-profits-surge-63pc

 

- Doesn't the government argue that we simply must cut the deficit? If so, from what areas do you suggest that we should make £50bn of further cuts in order to help our privatised railways, if they are struggling to stay afloat despite charging higher prices than state-owned rail companies like SNCF? Should we slash health, education or defence spending?

 

- If rail is so unprofitable, how come Branson and others are reportedly receiving millions of pounds in dividends? http://www.cityam.com/article/branson-paid-18m-virgin-rail-dividend

excellent post .

 

Surely if the argument is shifting to freight, speed is no longer an issue. It can be understandable how passengers want shorter travel time but I hardly think it makes much difference to 100's of tons of coal, steel . timber etc.

 

This is all about a big piggy trough of public money going to private individuals, and they are going to justify it any way they can.

[Webbo]

As I understand it freight won't be on HS2 so presumably it will be shifted on to the old line on the freed up by the New line.it's an important project but we need to watch the costs.

[davieG]

HS2: 12 arguments for and against

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24159571

[Zingari]

As I understand it freight won't be on HS2 so presumably it will be shifted on to the old line on the freed up by the New line.it's an important project but we need to watch the costs.

 

 So it comes back to the reasoning that this huge 50 billion + investment is to get passengers from London to Brum and back  a bit quicker doesn't it?

The cost already seems too high for me. I cant see how the whole value  of Royal mail can be 3.3 billion and this is supposed to be worth 50 . 

[MooseBreath]

They've got a £14billion contingency fund included in the budget. If they don't bring it in within that then they are retarded (sorry ken).

I'm not fully sold on the benefits myself, but only because I'm not entirely convinced that passenger rail travel has much of a long term future.

I am however fully supportive of the government spending that kind of money. It will provide a nice boost to the economy. In a country where you can barely walk the dog without facing some kind of opposition, it may be that a big rail project is one of the only ways we can actually get that kind of money moving.

[Zingari]

you're in favour of tax and spend policy? 

[Finnegan]

But what if it comes within a mile of my £2m house?! It'll knock off a few hundred k from the price and scare off all the pheasant, what what!

[Merging Cultures]

The Government investment in HS2 will benefit private companies. Which is a good thing. Profit made by private companies increases the value of shares which increases our pension pot (pension companies, insurance companies banks etc invest in the shares of private companies). If you don't like private companies to make a profit, then you'd better be investing in other assets for your pension.

 

Infrastructure investment is generally a good thing (unless it is a bridge to nowhere). The UK needs to make it easier to invest in infrastructure to avoid the ridiculously long winded planning projects and highly inflated costs.

[Zingari]

The Government investment in HS2 will benefit private companies. Which is a good thing. Profit made by private companies increases the value of shares which increases our pension pot (pension companies, insurance companies banks etc invest in the shares of private companies). If you don't like private companies to make a profit, then you'd better be investing in other assets for your pension.

 

Infrastructure investment is generally a good thing (unless it is a bridge to nowhere). The UK needs to make it easier to invest in infrastructure to avoid the ridiculously long winded planning projects and highly inflated costs.

Of course private companies want to make profits and we want them too. But not just by handing out huge contracts to white elephant projects that the taxpayer is funding. 

[Merging Cultures]

you're in favour of tax and spend policy? 

 

The Government doesn't typically raise funds for large infrastructure projects by raising taxes. Taxes generally raise revenue in the short-term. For long-term infrastructure they will issue bonds, and when those bonds mature... they will issue more to pay them off... this is why the debt has steadily increased. 

 

At one point the Government will be so highly leveraged that the bond markets will not support any more issues. However, that is probably still someway off.

[Merging Cultures]

Of course private companies want to make profits and we want them too. But not just by handing out huge contracts to white elephant projects that the taxpayer is funding. 

 

Not convinced it is a white elephant. More rail capacity is generally going to be a good thing. It's not like it is going to be built and no one is going to use it.

[breadandcheese]

I'd rather they spent the money on building new motorways.  The A1 should be a proper motorway all the way up to Edinburgh.  There is no major motorway dissecting the country from East to West. The A14 should be upgraded to rectify this.  

 

Like it or not, motorways carry far more freight and commuters than rail ever will, so the money should be directed to improving the motorway network.

[Zingari]

The Government doesn't typically raise funds for large infrastructure projects by raising taxes. Taxes generally raise revenue in the short-term. For long-term infrastructure they will issue bonds, and when those bonds mature... they will issue more to pay them off... this is why the debt has steadily increased. 

 

At one point the Government will be so highly leveraged that the bond markets will not support any more issues. However, that is probably still someway off.

However it's described , the money is coming from the taxpayer , right?And it's a huge amount that's being spent on a risky venture.

  And i'm pretty sure if labour were in power it would be described simply as  a lefty tax and spend project

[Zingari]

Not convinced it is a white elephant. More rail capacity is generally going to be a good thing. It's not like it is going to be built and no one is going to use it.

for 50 billion it needs to be cast iron guarantee , not just opinions 

[Zingari]

I'd rather they spent the money on building new motorways.  The A1 should be a proper motorway all the way up to Edinburgh.  There is no major motorway dissecting the country from East to West. The A14 should be upgraded to rectify this.  

 

Like it or not, motorways carry far more freight and commuters than rail ever will, so the money should be directed to improving the motorway network.

totally agree 

[Alf Bentley]

I am however fully supportive of the government spending that kind of money. It will provide a nice boost to the economy. In a country where you can barely walk the dog without facing some kind of opposition, it may be that a big rail project is one of the only ways we can actually get that kind of money moving.

 

I'm not necessarily opposed to this project - well-targeted investment in infrastructure is important for the future and boosts spending/growth/jobs. However, alarm bells ring when the advertised reasons for a project suddenly change. Those arguing for HS2 were definitely making the "quicker journeys for passengers, stimulating business" argument before, but have now switched to "capacity" and "freight". Is this just a tactical PR switch because politicians and big corporations, who work hand in glove whichever party is in govt, see benefits in it for themselves, not necessarily for passengers, growth etc.?

 

If you want to see large-scale public investment, Moose (surprised at that, what with austerity, "the need to cut the deficit" etc), how about a massive investment in house building instead? That would quickly boost growth, employment and spending, given all the SMEs and workers involved. It would also reduce house prices for first-time buyers struggling to buy and might avoid the sort of housing price bubble/crash that lay behind the banking crisis...a risk again with the current "help to buy" policy, which is jacking up house prices, as supply is woefully short of demand...it could even provide suitable accommodation for people clobbered by the bedroom tax who have no 1-bed flats to move to....

 

Re. the need for more passenger capacity on trains, particularly for businesspeople: whenever I travel by train, the 1st class carriages are mostly empty, despite the prices being only slightly higher than 2nd class. Admittedly, I don't travel before 9am, but I do sometimes travel to London weekday daytime and evening rush hour....where are all the businesspeople whom you'd expect to be there, tapping away at laptops? Will a minor time saving attract them on board?! 

[Zingari]

That would be a far too sensible thing to do Sir Alf