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

The Third Runway Debate - Finally...

My thoughts...

There appear to be three completely separate arguments fused within the popular 'hot topic' of what tends to be loosely labelled as the 'Heathrow Third Runway Debate'.

The first is simply whether Heathrow needs a third runway or not, and what the implications are for - or not - going ahead with one.

The second is whether there can be an alternative new runway - or airport - built somewhere else in order to increase capacity in general (and possible destinations) for the nation's airlines as a whole.

The third is the wider (and looser) argument of whether we need to be building new runways or not full stop, and whether we can come up with other, alternative solutions.. or indeed, if we can just sit back and ignore the whole thing altogether.

This blog entry is not necessarily going to have the space (or energy!) to provide definitive pros and cons for each side of each debate - and then draw a straight-forward and rounded conclusion based on them - but I will try and give my general (and most pressing) thoughts on the matter none-the-less!

1. I do not want a new runway for Heathrow!

This is not just because it is an easy side to take for a 'greeny' who doesn't appreciate the economic reasons/pressure behind having it, or someone who understands the extra noise and pollution that the planes (and all the associated transport infrastructure that serves them) creates. Indeed, it is easy to fall into the pit-trap of NIMBY-ism in such debates... but, fortunately, I do not live near Heathrow, or any other London airport.

No, in many ways, my two reasons for this not going ahead are more simple...

i) the third runway that has been proposed is too short in comparison to the other two exisiting runways and thus not a genuine solution to the primary argument behind why people are asking for an extension in the first place... namely a third runway that is able to handle the landings of the latest jet planes!

ii) the time and planning it will take to prepare the land to build it (including the inevitable compulsory purchase orders (CPOs)) will be a very long, complicated and drawn-out process, that will no doubt get tied-up by various lengths of bureaucratic red tape - some completely justified, others not-so-much.

2. The 'Boris Island' Estuary Airport is from the realm of science fiction... and should stay there!

As a dreamy teenager, I would have loved the various proposals for a new Thames Estuary Airport (whether it be Norman Foster's 'Thames Hub' design or the more recent Gensler designed 'London Britannia Airport' concept). I would have poured over the various maps and plans, 3D cut-views and mock-ups - even the stats and figures that pin it all together - for hours!

But then, I wasn't a very mature teenager...

On (e-)paper, it all sounds so good:-

i) 4-6 runways that will do all that is asked of the shortcomings of the current infrastructiure and will fully support the local and national economy (now and in the future) and more...

ii) Solid and integrated public transport links (including high-speed trains) that will no doubt connect the City of London in quicker times that it currently takes the Heathrow Express and tube lines...

iii) The creation of tens of 1000s of jobs in both the construction project itself and then the day-to-day running of the place...

iv) A much quicker and simpler planning AND construction process...

v) A site that is away than immediate areas of population... but still close to London.

 - and so on...

BUT.... I am against this too.

The truth is that such a project will take years - and years - to properly think-through and then build.

Side note:

One of the primary reasons the current London Mayor, Boris Johnson, is against the Heathrow Third Runway is the tedious process of sorting out all the complicated but necessary legislation that is needed first. He is right about the process being tedious... but his agenda is only thus because he knows it will take just as long a time to sort out the preparatory elements to his favoured alternative of the Thames Estuary Airport... and so he wants the project under way NOW(!) in order to get to the point where his ridiculously large-scale project (and all its required and related infrastructure) is actually being built instead.

But starting to build and finishing a build are two different things!

Most (voting) Londoners that are against the Third Runway will be doing so from an environmental perspective... and Boris is gorging himself off that city-wide NIMBY-ism. His dream for the Estuary Airport is then a way of placating the businessmen (and women - but to a lesser extent, let's be honest!) that still want (profitable) growth.

We are currently in the economic doldrums it's true... and one of the consistent calls (both before and during the recession) for improving the British Economy has been to increase our 'global business network' and the associated transport and communication connectivity that implies - so that it is on a par with rival European countries.

This is mainly, apparently, to be done via the implementation of new and improved airline services to 'customers' around the world...

BUT how do we know what the future will truly bring? And who is to say that being able to fly direct from London to places which aren't currently available (mainly the rich BRIC cities) is really a good thing for business? It is short term and speculative.

And... isn't the fact that places like Frankfurt or (Amsterdam) Schiphol that already have such places on offer to fly to NOW have simply beaten us to it?

------

I digress...  

For me, the Environmnetal impact of the Thames Estuary Airport is unacceptable. This link deals with that side of things better than me:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jan/18/boris-island-airport-impact-wildlife 

AND... for the pilots that would then fly into such a place (aside of the fact that this area would then be the most busy airspace on the planet making it so congested that the chances of mid-air plane collisions are high too), there would then be a very high chance of regular bird strikes (i.e. waders)... creating a very dangerous and potentially disastrous situation, every time a plane lands... on each and every day!

3. A new runway for any other 'London' Airport is equally just as disastrous.

There are alternatives to building anew at Heathrow.

All the other "London" airports (Gatwick, Luton, Stansted...) only have single runways at present and would all benefit from having a second runway that would relieve pressure on their own infrastructure as well as that of the significantly 'hemmed-in' Heathrow...

Well, sort of. The problem is that ALL of the surrounding land around ALL the London airports is either an area of high population or a complicated fabric of attractive countryside or existing roads and railways that would take a lot of work to 'tidy up' ... Just like Heathrow!

It would, again, take years to sort out - regardless of where one stood stand on the matter.

Looking at the last time a second runway was proposed - and debated - for Stansted, you can see where the problems are with that proposal being dragged out of the gutter again!

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/campaigning/our-campaigns/aviation/stansted/Pages/expansion-proposals.aspx?gclid=COe16ISpurMCFczHtAodYQMA-g

4. Building 'oop north' instead as an alternative will be ignored!

I am more far more passive to the idea of buidling new runways to airports in our northern cities, aside of the general debate about CO² emmisions and the fact our skies are full of planes already.

After all, new planes such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner are allegedly far more fuel efficicient and environmentally friendly in their contsruction than older planes... so we may be able to make the call for 'having more'... if the 'inefficient old' are retired.

Whether it's Birmingham (not so far north admittedly), Manchester, Leeds-Bradford... Glasgow... Aberdeen... it doesn't matter. As long as the land is brownfield or not so obviously 'precious' in terms of either wildlife habitats, prime agricultural land, historical sites or areas of population... there is an argument.

However... the 'business people' won't want to hear of it.

Whether we like it or not, LONDON is what is behind the call to extend, Not the United Kingdom as a whole. The financial clout of the City of London, as the current Financial Capital of the World is what (certain) people want to protect, and not any general business or tourism concept (e.g. the now defunct Cool Britannia), however good and beneficial that is to all (/more).

What with our current transport infrastructure being old, slow and/or over-crowded in the main, building anywhere further out than, say, an hour or two outside of London will not be efficient for those business people flying in to get to their important meetings on time in the city.

5. Building anything will be too late... so let's do something else! 

Aside of the argument that London retains the image and atmosphere that people want to witness in the flesh, we may be able to argue that, in the future, most business will be done 'in the cloud' online, and not need to employ so many planes and business class seats for trivial face-to-face meetings and events.

The human animal (and business 'player') will always need to interact face-to-face from time to time it's true... and being in a hi-tech future won't change that... but there should be (and is) the capacity for the occasional business trip by plane to the UK for that now.

What we need to do is reduce the number of current journeys! We need to agree that things will only get worse in terms of traffic, pollution, population... and that any potential 'solutions' for the short to mid-term future have so many hang-ups and will take so long to sort out and implement that they are not worth investing in AT ALL.

If we lived in a totalitarian society, where the masses could be grouped and forced to produce such large-scale 'objects' at whatever cost then may be... but we don't. And how can we afford large-scale projects full-stop if we are supposed to be in the middle of a recession? If we can, then perhaps the truth is that
the money we do have is enough... and it is simply being badly organised and/or mis-managed... as opposed to not being there!

SO: If we can sort out things like Super-Fast Broadband for everywhere in London and the South-East, and 4G networks across all our major towns and cities and so on... we open up the rest of the country to potential investors... and start to relieve pressure - tomorrow.

True, the people that want to go to London, and London alone, will not want to go to a wet and grey Manchester to do business... but many people confuse London with everywhere else in the country anyway, and the main fact is that the UK is not a big place. Many businesses already 'trick' customers by playing on that fact that, on different scales, places like Bristol are close to London.

It's all subjective and down to clever marketing.

In addition, we are supposed to be getting a new High Speed Rail project to help the South-East. Aside of the fact that it won't really encourage businesses to go north and will, in truth, just extend the clogging-up of London further by helping people commute in to the capital from further afield, there seems to be no thinking from the present government that High Speed 2 and the Third Runway Debate our intrinsically linked... and that both projects could do with being handled as one big (MASSIVE!) overall project.

But the High Speed 2 Project is for another blog entry for another day...

In conclusion...

I think we have missed the boat (or, rather, plane!) on the need for a third runway.

Any 'solution' calling for new 4 kilometre-long pieces of tarmac, with all the associated clutter that comes alongside them, will come too late to really help... and will do ADDITIONAL damage on top too.

Even though the dreamy young teenager from late 1980s would disagree with me, I don't want ANY new runways in the UK...

And that young boy wouldn't have known about the Internet at that time anyway.

Who's to say what new technology the future will bring? Technology that provides us with a different approach... and solution... to all of this mess?

Zeeox