High Speed 2

I must write this entry for the HS2! I have had so much to say on it over these last few months but just kept forgetting to put it 'down' here. So, finally, here is an update of my latest thoughts - and perhaps I will have a chance to add more to this post later so it can be refined... and my overall opinion articulated as best I can.

I have just heard an interesting viewpoint on the 'latest' plans for HS2 you see, as the Government continues its push to get the show on the road. This viewpoint was that the reason behind the construction of the railway was/IS all down to the financial benefits.

If it is deemed profitable, it will go ahead... and if not, it won't.

That sounds clear and right... except that I was of the thinking that that wasn't really the main drive for it. Surely HS2's main drive is to be the middle phase of a three phase programme that connects the southern half of the UK with the north? That is, that there will be a HS3 as soon as HS2 is done, so that the whole country is connected up for our future needs.

BUT I am hardly hearing any references about the third phase... it is all about the second and nothing else.

The argument is all about projected costs and projected profits of HS2. There is a push for the taxpayer to pay all... and that an estimated £50 billion in costs will immediately create £15 billion in profits to trade in and between cities and towns outside of London...

In opposition, some have said that the projected 'profits' are based on unsound calculations, and that it is nigh-on impossible to fathom how much money will be made.

Similarly, there has been much discussion about what areas and settlements will do BADLY out of the scheme. In other words, those left off the path of the railway will be left out of a share of the profits... despite having to pay for the project through taxation. I have read that it will cost the taxpayer £1500 each overall, but I still need to investigate about what overall time period that refers to - and if it is to all the populace or those on the route (a la the Olympics local taxation).

Anyway, all that aside, I just can't understand why the 'fundamentals' aren't being argued. I think the fundamentals are to do with the development timescale and the available technology. I just don't think a 225 mph train running through the Home Counties to Birmingham a decade from now is going to be of any great worth. At least, in comparison to the overheads.

What should we do instead?

Well, for fear of being a broken record here, as in my argument against the need for a third runway for Heathrow, I think the way we approach business is the key here. London dominates the UK, in all ways, and we need to spread the profits out... by using digital means. Digital business is done in the 'cloud'... it does not need so much expensive infrastructure. Some yes, but wires aren't as wide as trains.

People seem to think that HS2 will help new businesses set up in the north, and that may be true to an extent. But I think the impact will be small. The main 'profit' will simply be an increase in the numbers of rich commuters being able to commute from homes OUTSIDE London INTO London in record time to do their high-end work. Just like before.

The increase in speed will just allow commuters to live (just that) little bit further out than before, buying up the best houses in places that were originally too far from London. And what does that mean? It means local people being priced out of particular areas because these affluent London commuters push up the prices of their housing, but then give nothing back to the local business community as a result.

In terms of technology, if we must push for a fancy train, then why not go full-hog and commit to a Maglev solution? These trains go much faster than conventional trains. 300-400+ mph is feasible. Current trains in Spain, France, China and so on already average the 200+ mph speeds that we are trying to target here... and remember that this thing is going to take ages to build once compulsory land purchases are given the go ahead. Who knows what they will do next why we are still building?

Britain led the way with innovation in the railways once, so why not be more radical? Be ahead of the curve, so to speak.

Also... and here's the other idea: if we must have HS2, then why not leave it 'til the end and build HS3 first?

We can then genuinely target business growth OUTSIDE London by encouraging commuting between the Far North and Midlands... and address the urgent need for new housing in areas that can accommodate it, rather than the already crowded South-East.

How good would that be? New, affordable, housing in the north, and new jobs 'fizzing' into being as a result of a modern railway that encourages business to set-up and locate away from the capital.

Once that has all kicked in, we can connect the south with the north with HS2 and have the more balanced country that we all deserve.

Right, that will do for now. I will add subsequent entries or revisions to the above a.s.a.p. as I see fit. I know I had a few more points to add, although my main point has been made: If we must do this - let's have HS3 first, HS2 later!

Cheers,
ZeeOx

http://www.hs2.org.uk/hs2-phase-one-hybrid-bill

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24012888