Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
John Whitelegg

GET UPDATES FROM John Whitelegg
 

HS2 is Socially Regressive, Environmentally Damaging and Bafflingly Irrational

Posted: 11/01/12 09:44 GMT

The government has finally announced its decision to proceed with a new high speed railway line between London and Birmingham known as HS2. This is a brand new railway line that is designed to run at 250mph/400kph and because of the high speed which means the need for straight sections and avoidance of curves it is especially destructive of the countryside though which it passes. This remains the case in spite of additional tunnelling.

The whole project is characterised by overblown rhetoric about economic growth, reducing the north south divide and making the nation more prosperous. It is of course nothing like this at all. It is a very expensive, very environmentally damaging, very badly thought through transport project. It is one of the most expensive transport projects supported by any government over the last three to four decades and has the weakest justification, business case and rationale.

The project relies on the incredible notion that the time savings for high income passengers translate into huge economic gains and in some mysterious way propagate prosperity and happiness along the viaducts, through the tunnels and along the 75 metres swathe of concrete, overhead wires, access roads and electrical gear that race though Oxfordshire and Warwickshire.

Credibility levels are under more pressure still when it becomes clear that the monetary value of time savings amounts to such a big number because of the assumption that the time spent on these trains is non-productive time. In the parallel universe of high speed rail no one uses lap tops, mobile phones and other technology to get on with work. The forecasts of future demand levels for business travel take no account of the rapid spread of video-conferencing and other technologies that substitute electronic communication for physical travel.

The deeply offensive consultation on HS2 gives the game away. The most important things were not consulted on at all. The massive scale of the environmental damage caused by HS2 is the result of a design that specifies 250mph/400kph running. Faster running requires more engineering and straight lines than a lower design speed. We were not consulted on the route when there are other options that could be used e.g. following motorways. We were not consulted on more fundamental options e.g. if we want to create jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions then how does a complete electrification of the UK railways system stack up by comparison?

Supporters of HS2 have linked the project to a low carbon transport future and then revealed the true nature of the project which is simply about encouraging more long distant travel and more carbon emissions. HS2 sits alongside an assumption that long distance car travel will increase 44% by 2033 and air travel by 178% by the same year. The new line will produce an 8% shift away from air and the same away from car. This is just not good enough for such an expensive project and does not deliver climate change or sustainable development objectives.

The starting point for any large transport investment is how it sits within a vision of what kind of society and economy we are trying to shape. The Green Party is very clear on this and we want strong city regions with highly integrated transport systems as good as Zurich or Basle or Frankfurt stretching for at least 50kms around all our major cities. We want excellent inter-city linkages between places like Liverpool,Manchester and Leeds, Liverpool and Glasgow and Exeter, Bristol and Birmingham.

We want excellent rural public transport so that there is a real choice between the car and its alternatives. We want a transport system driven by social justice and fairness and providing high quality choices to all income groups and all localities. HS2 is a rich person's railway and the government knows that spending public money on something that simply will not be used by the bottom 50% of income bands is a reverse Robin Hood strategy. It is a socially regressive project.

At a time of massive cuts in public expenditure and a desperate need to upgrade our big city public transport systems so that they can stand comparison with Frankfurt, Zurich and Vienna the support given by labour, conservative and lib dem politicians to this large scale vanity project is obscene. I challenge all those politicians who support HS2 to go out onto the streets and ask real people to choose between spending £17 billion on reducing the journey time for wealthy rail passengers between London and Birmingham by 23 minutes and all the other things we could do for that pot of money.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:34 PM on 01/25/2012
"Bafflingly irrational"... How painfully naive. Lets go through this: Yes, HS2 defines price, supply and demand logic: If journey times drove demand, then shuttle flights into London City would long have been more popular than train... So HS2 will be subsidised from taxes to mainain demand - both the capital and later operating costs, offering, in effect, an annuity. Its a great investment case. And that is why it is perfectly rational... Take group 1: "Corporate and business elites": E.g. Carloline Spelman, 3-4 homes, worth over a 1m. Husband is director of Accenture, drumming up trade for major infrastructure projects (like High speed rail) in world economic forums. China wants contracts and will invest bns. Group 1 support offers them prospects for power and position. Group 2: "Second rate councillors and business leaders": Anything but support for HS2 becomes political suicide. There are possible benefits. Group 3: "The tax-payer". The £30b tax bill, £40-50bn with interest, spent over 10 years, only equates to £500/yr/working person. Politicians understand Brits will pay - our smart meters will cost 2-3 times France's - car fuel taxes are x2-3 the US. So, where is the mystery.... Alas, John, the only confusion comes from articles like yours, conceiving HS2 is intended to provide social and environmental benefits. Too many half-wits like Krafty80, who is evidently told his opinions, but who unfortunately can't grasp basic logical linkages (like capacity and demand), need it spelling out.
08:21 PM on 01/18/2012
A tired rehash of the usual scaremongering, simplificationa and supposition from an academic who should know better. Not one mention of capacity on our existing rail network, nor any mention of the national rail electrification programme now (belatedly) underway. Does the Prof even know about this?

It is sad that the Green Party leadership has reportedly overruled its own transport team in opposing high speed rail in the UK, as it is empirically proven that attempts to deliver equivalent inter-city passenger rail capacity on the existing railway will mean more trucks carrying freight on our roads and fewer local rail services, as Network Rail have confirmed.

HS2 can be (much) cheaper and greener...it is a shame that the discredited Prof Whitelegg has no desire to be involved in that process.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ppenguinator
Life's too imprtant to be taken seriously.
09:49 PM on 01/11/2012
This would benefit people in Birmingham who regularly commute to London, And those in London who regularly commute to Birmingham. I wonder how many of those there are, and whether they're worth spending upwards of £17 Billion on?
06:23 PM on 01/11/2012
lots of negative feedback in the comments. the article seemed well researched and well put together to me - very worrying news and especially with all three parties agreeing.. :(
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:30 PM on 01/11/2012
Help me here, the Green party complaining about a railway being built as they claim it will damage the environment. Would that be the same green party which has the following on its previous manifesto:
"Support in principle a new north–south high-speed line, which would reduce the number of short-haul flights within the UK. "

I get the impression that the Greens are only complaining because they feel they have to.
03:20 PM on 01/11/2012
The previous manifesto being just that. "In principle" meaning just that. The plans were at that point in a very early stage. Since then, the plans have looked like a pointless waste of money and a potential cause of unnecessary destruction. Hence, the Green Party decision to oppose HS2, but not the principle of high-speed rail:

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/26-02-2011-high-speed-rail-decision.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:44 PM on 01/11/2012
So high speed train lines good but the high speed train line to Birmingham is bad.

Anybody know where high speed train lines would be welcome in the Uk?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:48 PM on 01/11/2012
from the Greens website:
"The proposed HS2 trains would burn 50% more energy mile-for-mile than the Eurostar.

But still less than a plane and a motorway full of cars.

from the Greens website:
"HS2 would produce more than twice the emissions of an intercity train.
How so, most intercity trains are diesel engined , modern trains are powered by electric.

from the Greens website:
"HS2 is a ‘rich person's railway' - the business case assumes that a third of passengers will be on incomes of £70,000 or more.

Which means 2 thirds (the majority) will be earning less. But where does he glean the 1/3 from, on any train from London the vast majority of folks will not be sat in First class. I know that for a fact as I stand all the way there and back. No seats.