HS2, whats the current status ?

HS2, whats the current status ?

Author
Discussion

Robertj21a

6,736 posts

50 months

Friday 23rd August
quotequote all
Aren't we just back to the usual argument that if you significantly improve the roads then more people use them ?


Digga

27,511 posts

228 months

Friday 23rd August
quotequote all
Robertj21a said:
Aren't we just back to the usual argument that if you significantly improve the roads then more people use them ?
Apparently, the received wisdom on the data (which via MOTs etc., should be easy to collate) is that 'we', the UK are driving fewer miles. Whilst in part I would argue that may reflect environmental conscience (demand), I think it more reflects the severe difficulties in being/staying mobile in the first place (supply).

Overall, if this projects onto (necessary, but now impossible) business miles, it is bad.

The figures: https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/driving-...

Swervin_Mervin

2,756 posts

183 months

Friday 23rd August
quotequote all
Robertj21a said:
Aren't we just back to the usual argument that if you significantly improve the roads then more people use them ?
No. The issue is that they're at capacity during peak periods and that rarely if ever changes as a result of building more road space. As a consequence, in the worst affected areas the peak period spreads, as people seek to avoid the worst times to travel. The affected network also spreads as people avoid the worst routes. Ultimately most of what you achieve in building new road capacity (be that through widening or new routes) is that you reduce the "spread". So yes, it would undoubtedly have a benefit, but it doesn't solve the problem.

It should only ever be part of a wider investment in transport infrastructure as a whole. To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France. As has already been pointed out, to drive on seemingly deserted autoroutes and then complain you're stuck on the M25/M40/M6 etc is to completely ignore the fact that much of the Autoroute network (taking France as the example) is not under the direct pressure from immediate settlements. We have fewer large expanses between those pressure points, which has the effect of congestion seeming to be never-ending on some routes.

Take yourself to many of the European cities and you'll start to see very similar problems to those that we have. The difference is that many have invested on a far greater scale in alternative transport infrastructure as well, which can and will only ever benefit the road network as a consequence.

Unfortunately it's the same old arguments in this country - it was the same when the Channel Tunnel was being brought forward, the same when the M25 was being delivered, and yet no one would now consider those infrastructure schemes to be dispensable.

Digga

27,511 posts

228 months

Friday 23rd August
quotequote all
Swervin_Mervin said:
To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France.
Not really, that depends on the metric in use.

How about on the density of motorway? We fall well behind Benelux:



https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained...

Swervin_Mervin

2,756 posts

183 months

Friday 23rd August
quotequote all
Digga said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France.
Not really, that depends on the metric in use.

How about on the density of motorway? We fall well behind Benelux:



https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained...
Population density, as I said. And there's no "not really" about it - England is the most densely populated (proper) country in Europe. Only Belgium and Netherlands are close.

ETA - looking at your motorway density we seem to be largely up there with Germany, albeit the North of England has as high a density of motorways as Benelux. Only north midlands that's down.

Edited by Swervin_Mervin on Friday 23 August 15:28

Digga

27,511 posts

228 months

Friday 23rd August
quotequote all
Swervin_Mervin said:
Population density, as I said. And there's no "not really" about it - England is the most densely populated (proper) country in Europe. Only Belgium and Netherlands are close.

ETA - looking at your motorway density we seem to be largely up there with Germany, albeit the North of England has as high a density of motorways as Benelux. Only north midlands that's down.

Edited by Swervin_Mervin on Friday 23 August 15:28
If our population is denser, then so should our roads be.

If you look at the UK map, you can see the glaring flaws - a gap of low density, right across the Midlands. You know, right where all the motorways snaffoo, each and every weekday.

glazbagun

9,851 posts

142 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
Ministers knew it was over budget before they signed it off-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49450297

Its like they saw the mess Edinburgh made of its trams and thought they'd scale it up.

eliot

8,481 posts

199 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
I mainly use the west coast line into london or the midlands. The trains are always busy, even off peak.
Only the late night piss head specials are quiet - which i avoid (unless i’m pissed)

alfaman

6,091 posts

179 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
glazbagun said:
Ministers knew it was over budget before they signed it off-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49450297

Its like they saw the mess Edinburgh made of its trams and thought they'd scale it up.
Who paid for Edinburgh trams - was it English tax payers via subsidy as well as Scottish residents via local taxes?

Digga

27,511 posts

228 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
eliot said:
I mainly use the west coast line into london or the midlands. The trains are always busy, even off peak.
Only the late night piss head specials are quiet - which i avoid (unless i’m pissed)
That's when the "late night piss head specials" are running. I don't often get them, but a bunch of us went to a rock concert in Birmingham last November and got the train home - we had to leave the gig before it finished to get the last train back north.

So again, we're back to roads...

mcdjl

3,949 posts

140 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
Digga said:
If our population is denser, then so should our roads be.

If you look at the UK map, you can see the glaring flaws - a gap of low density, right across the Midlands. You know, right where all the motorways snaffoo, each and every weekday.
So where would those motorways in the Midlands go to/from? Apart from Derby-Nottingham each major city is pretty much motorway linked to each other. Any new motorway will duplicate another, unless you try build swindon- Oxford/ Birmingham. The most useful thing that could be done is turning the a14 or A50 into motorways rather than dual carriageways.

abzmike

1,384 posts

51 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
alfaman said:
Who paid for Edinburgh trams - was it English tax payers via subsidy as well as Scottish residents via local taxes?
It was the city council, with a £72M contribution from the Scottish government. A 30 year loan by the coincil is to cover the overrun from additinal estimates.

Who is paying for Crossrail, HS1, Channel Tunnel, HS2? English or UK taxpayers?

CoolHands

9,898 posts

140 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
Who funds the Scottish government. Oh yes the UK government

abzmike

1,384 posts

51 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
CoolHands said:
Who funds the Scottish government. Oh yes the UK government
Not just the UK government...
Interestingly in this case the SNP tried to kill the Edinburgh trams project, but it was pushed through by Labour, LibDems, Greens and Tories.

popeyewhite

10,232 posts

65 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
Swervin_Mervin said:
Unfortunately it's the same old arguments in this country - it was the same when the Channel Tunnel was being brought forward, the same when the M25 was being delivered, and yet no one would now consider those infrastructure schemes to be dispensable.
Correct, in a way you haven't thought of. Living in the North whether there's a Chunnel or M25, or even a way of lopping 5 mins of a train trip to London, makes no difference to my life whatsoever. Nor to the majority of Northeners who look at the HS2 vanity project and shake their heads in disbelief. Utter, utter waste of money better spent elsewhere.

mcdjl

3,949 posts

140 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
popeyewhite said:
Correct, in a way you haven't thought of. Living in the North whether there's a Chunnel or M25, or even a way of lopping 5 mins of a train trip to London, makes no difference to my life whatsoever. Nor to the majority of Northeners who look at the HS2 vanity project and shake their heads in disbelief. Utter, utter waste of money better spent elsewhere.
Living in the Midlands it makes no difference to me whether theres a TransPennine link, or HS2. Both massive wastes of money/vanity projects.

Blue62

3,822 posts

97 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
Swervin_Mervin said:
No. The issue is that they're at capacity during peak periods and that rarely if ever changes as a result of building more road space. As a consequence, in the worst affected areas the peak period spreads, as people seek to avoid the worst times to travel. The affected network also spreads as people avoid the worst routes. Ultimately most of what you achieve in building new road capacity (be that through widening or new routes) is that you reduce the "spread". So yes, it would undoubtedly have a benefit, but it doesn't solve the problem.

It should only ever be part of a wider investment in transport infrastructure as a whole. To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France. As has already been pointed out, to drive on seemingly deserted autoroutes and then complain you're stuck on the M25/M40/M6 etc is to completely ignore the fact that much of the Autoroute network (taking France as the example) is not under the direct pressure from immediate settlements. We have fewer large expanses between those pressure points, which has the effect of congestion seeming to be never-ending on some routes.

Take yourself to many of the European cities and you'll start to see very similar problems to those that we have. The difference is that many have invested on a far greater scale in alternative transport infrastructure as well, which can and will only ever benefit the road network as a consequence.

Unfortunately it's the same old arguments in this country - it was the same when the Channel Tunnel was being brought forward, the same when the M25 was being delivered, and yet no one would now consider those infrastructure schemes to be dispensable.
I agree with much of what you say there, but I can't help but feel that HS2 will swallow up too much of the budget to the detriment of more pressing projects elsewhere, especially in the North and South West. I've yet to be convinced that it is money well spent, though fully accept the capacity argument I can't understand why we can't just build more lines along the existing WCM route?

FourWheelDrift

77,823 posts

229 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
Is there any data to show how many people commute from Birmingham to London for work on a daily basis?

rover 623gsi

3,206 posts

106 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
Blue62 said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
No. The issue is that they're at capacity during peak periods and that rarely if ever changes as a result of building more road space. As a consequence, in the worst affected areas the peak period spreads, as people seek to avoid the worst times to travel. The affected network also spreads as people avoid the worst routes. Ultimately most of what you achieve in building new road capacity (be that through widening or new routes) is that you reduce the "spread". So yes, it would undoubtedly have a benefit, but it doesn't solve the problem.

It should only ever be part of a wider investment in transport infrastructure as a whole. To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France. As has already been pointed out, to drive on seemingly deserted autoroutes and then complain you're stuck on the M25/M40/M6 etc is to completely ignore the fact that much of the Autoroute network (taking France as the example) is not under the direct pressure from immediate settlements. We have fewer large expanses between those pressure points, which has the effect of congestion seeming to be never-ending on some routes.

Take yourself to many of the European cities and you'll start to see very similar problems to those that we have. The difference is that many have invested on a far greater scale in alternative transport infrastructure as well, which can and will only ever benefit the road network as a consequence.

Unfortunately it's the same old arguments in this country - it was the same when the Channel Tunnel was being brought forward, the same when the M25 was being delivered, and yet no one would now consider those infrastructure schemes to be dispensable.
I agree with much of what you say there, but I can't help but feel that HS2 will swallow up too much of the budget to the detriment of more pressing projects elsewhere, especially in the North and South West. I've yet to be convinced that it is money well spent, though fully accept the capacity argument I can't understand why we can't just build more lines along the existing WCM route?
£billions has already been spent upgrading the West Coast Main Line - there is no more space to anything more and it would take much longer, be much more disruptive and need much more money than HS2 to deliver anything like the benefits that HS2 will. In fact HS2 is basically an upgrade of the WCML. The biggest problem with HS2 is its name.

Digga

27,511 posts

228 months

Tuesday 27th August
quotequote all
mcdjl said:
Digga said:
If our population is denser, then so should our roads be.

If you look at the UK map, you can see the glaring flaws - a gap of low density, right across the Midlands. You know, right where all the motorways snaffoo, each and every weekday.
So where would those motorways in the Midlands go to/from? Apart from Derby-Nottingham each major city is pretty much motorway linked to each other. Any new motorway will duplicate another, unless you try build swindon- Oxford/ Birmingham. The most useful thing that could be done is turning the a14 or A50 into motorways rather than dual carriageways.
Precisely, please hence my earlier point about redundancy.

Anyone who's traveled in Europe will know that there is normally a choice of motorway-grade routes for most journeys. So if/when there is an incident or roadworks, which would otherwise hugely impact journey times, there is an alternative.

Bringing the whole A38 up to scratch, as well as your suggestions, would work.

Bringing the belegured and much hindered A34 (next to useless in many sections) back to some semblance of trunk road status too.