The Department for Transport have released details of the HS2 consultation.
With hundreds of pages of documentation, which we hadn’t seen before, Stop HS2 are going to be busy reading for a while.
Roadshow dates here.
Library of supporting information here (and hard copies of some information can be ordered here).
Useful documents you can download from the Dft site:
- High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future Consultation Document
- High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future Consultation Summary
Statement from Philip Hammond here.
I live in a semi as do many others HS”ISNOT RIGHT) To have massive fences along an ordinary road where once you could see fields is not pretty .The sound barriers will not help when you have to have windows open in summer and money is no compensation.I have worked very hard on my home and hoped to live in peace but if i felt this would be of benifit to the country i would not feel incensed, as i do, to protest against it.I have read many articles
both for and against and some of the things the gvment have said are ridiculous.i.e.HALF THE COUNTRY ARE FOR HS2.actually only 2,037 were asked 40% were undecided hardly half the population and you believe everthing they say do you?
The documents appear not to have inconsistencies, please can you explain what they are? Yes the new line will have a noise level but there is going to be noise reduction measures and you going to get paid. If you dont like it you can move. The HS2 is need more then a few people in very expensive houses that dont like in there back yards.
I have not had time to read the new documents so can’t answer your question about inconsistencies. However, you will have seen the headline in today’s issue of Public Finance.
“The High Speed 2 rail line would cost £32bn but generate £71bn over 60 years, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond has said”.
Good heavens, I thought. I may have to rethink my view about the finances of HS2 if the return is as good as that. No such luck! Philip Hammond has a different definition of ‘generate’ from me. I thought that meant income. Not a bit of it! The income from fares over 60 years is £27bn. The rest, £44bn, is ‘economic benefit’. There you have it, £27bn plus £44bn is £71bn. Easy! Wish my finances were as straightforward as this. Having just seen again the video of Philip Hammond’s debate with Hilary Wharf last September I was struck by his description of consultation. It is, in his words, to ‘rebut’ the arguments agaist it. No wonder he didn’t want STOP HS2 at Birmingham this morning.
By the way, if you think that opposition to HS2 is just from Nimbys and green cranks I suggest you read the editorial in today’s Financial Times.
Your argument is a little flawed Phil…..the impact of a new High Speed line has spin off effects elsewhere such as releasing capacity on current network. Freight carriers are now banging on the doors of Network Rail for future paths up and down the country.
Its been well proven over the last few years that investing in rail has attracted passengers in record numbers – we now carry the same amount as we did when the network was 3 times the size pre beeching. The limit point of upgrades to WCML and ECML is now in sight – it makes sense to build a new line with state of the art technology etc….doing nothing is not really an option particularly as we have some green targets to hit in the nect decade..
As has been previously stated , if the traditional way of working out returns were applied to mega infrastructure projects, then nothing would get built.
Gary, I fully understand that big projects need detailed forecasts to help the decision process and justify the investment. The point I was making was that the forecast for real income from fares has been conflated with estimates of wider economic benefits to come up with a figure of £71 bn for income generation.
Either way Phil, I m sure the decision to invest in this isnt going to be taken lightly…..hence the extended public consultation. But to me it looks the right move given that we have a current rail network built in Victorian times which has had a re birth owing to the amounts of investment pumped into it in the last 10 years or so….London itself is getting a serious chunk with both Crossrail and Thameslink which will provide much needed relief in and around the capital. Pure fare income wont cover the costs either , but the knock on effects of such investment will be tangible in years to come…..
FAO Simon Griffiths – where are the inconsistencies and errors????.
I ve just been through the whole document – looks fine to me…..
You have to be amazed at our Government.
In the library is a link to ‘Strategic Alternatives’ – which lists a link to
Strategic Alternatives to the Proposed ‘Y’ Network (NONE 0.00 KB)
Are they trying to tell us something here!!!
I have only read the paragraphs about noise so far and it is a complete wheitewash full of inconsistencies and errors. If this is symptomatic of the standard of the whole of the Appraisal of Sustainability report and the business case we should all work hard to expose HS2 as the sham that it is.