Skip to main content

Will HS2 be redundant?

I suppose I can't resist saying something about HS2. At least it shows that, if the government wishes, it can find funds for infrastructure investment.  A plan B is possible. The public consultation about the proposed route was a farce. No environmental impact assessment had been carried out. So answering the questions was a stab in the dark.

HS2, we are told, will 'transform journeys'. HS2 is forecast to carry up to 5.4 million passengers every year who might otherwise have travelled by air, as well as potentially seeing up to 9.8 million passengers transfer from the national road network. Those are big numbers. It might help cut the carbon footprint.

I am not at all sure where they get these estimates from. Well I do really. They use an econometric model to project the numbers of air passengers, The Unrestricted Error Correction Model is one of them.  It has an equation that has a lot of Qs and Zs in it and a few bits of Greek alphabet. And it has been quite an accurate model. So I'll accept their projection, although with some doubts about whether it sufficiently accounts for changes in work and lifestyle; the way we live, where we live and work.

More freight trains using the space freed up on the existing rail network will reduce lorry traffic on the motorways and help improve air quality. And it will provide opportunities for development on under-used brownfield sites. It will provide jobs in its construction and maintenance. That is the argument. But do we need it? And is it the best way to generate growth?

I don't know the answers, but what I do think is that it will probably suck the economic life out of the Midlands and the North. Cutting journey times will extend the London commuter belt. Northern towns will become domiciliary for London workers. It will push up house prices just as it did in the South Eastern commuter belt. And it probably won't generate or regenerate the areas of greatest deprivation.

The fact that they anticipate it will 'free up space' on existing lines is worrying. It suggests they anticipate reduced service for passengers on the existing commuter routes. So I would expect reduced and poorer services; more crowded trains not less. Many towns will not be served by HS2 and the existing services are likely to be starved of funds for  essential upgrade.

And what of technology and changing work practices. Will it really be necessary for people to continue working in offices in London? Will more work and meetings be 'virtual'?

Much is made of the fact that it will be the first major infrastructural project since the Victorians built the railways. The railways made the canals redundant. By the time HS2 is finished, will it really be needed?

And meanwhile HS2 will carve through the countryside destroying precious woodland. I don't know. What do you think?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha