Posted 20th November 2013 | 7 Comments
HS2 'will upset somebody' whichever route is chosen
THE HS2 Paving Bill to release funds for the preliminary stages of developing the high speed line has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, and only awaits the formal Royal Assent before it becomes law.
The main Hybrid Bill authorising the full HS2 project will now be launched in Parliament on Monday. This will be needed before the £42.6 billion scheme to build HS2 in two phases, from London to Birmingham and then onwards to Manchester and Leeds, can go ahead
But the peer who chairs the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Transport Committee said of the controversial line that 'whichever way it goes it will upset somebody'. Lord Bradshaw was speaking after the Paving Bill had completed its progress through the House of Lords on 19 November. This was also a relative formality, because by convention the Lords do not oppose a 'money Bill'.
Labour supports the scheme in principle, but has sounded warnings about costs. However, most of the peers who spoke in the House of Lords debate were in favour of the project. The Commons had already voted the Bill through by a majority of 316.
The present chief executive of Network Rail, David Higgins, will become the chairman of the government development company HS2 Ltd early next year, replacing Douglas Oakervee. Lord Adonis, who was transport secretary in the last Labour government when it launched the project, has urged David Higgins to get a 'firm grip on management costs'.
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham
Chiltern Lad, I'm open to suggestions over whether you could manage an M40 route without it affect any more people than the proposed one, but the point is that you seem to be utterly outraged about HS2 running near their homes, using scary phrase such as "asset stripped", but you don't seem to have a problem with the same being applied to people who live elsewhere.
I would have liked more of a discussion on the M1/M40 corridor options myself, but you can blame your County Council for that one. Bucks CC could probably have made a decent case for re-routing HS2, but instead they thought they could turn in into the majority of car users ganging up on the minority of rail users by pretending the problems don't exist, proposing a upgrade solution that doesn't work work and declare it a success - in the hope that the people who lose out massively from this non-solution will be ignored. It didn't work.
The people who I feel most sorry for are the minority of Chilterners who wanted to put their efforts into considering a different route, or pushing for better compensation, or getting something out of HS2 with an interchange with EW-rail and the Aylesbury line. All of those things might have been achievable, and Tett and Co has probably made them all impossible.
CHILTERN LAD, London/Chilterns
Chris Neville Smith
HS2 ltd propaganda compares HS1 and HS2 favourably. Sadly there is no direct comparison as HS1 follows transport corridors and spares the AONB. Its route took decades to determine.
You do not answer the transparency issue over route decision. I have worked out the populations involved between the M40 and current route and it is not that different.
Route three was chosen by HS2ltd over the M40 corridor as it was less costly and apparently risked less population (Beaconsfield Gerrards Cross and Princes Risborough . (The cost of tunnelling to mitigate these populations would be 3bn) HS2 ltd cited a combined population of 100k (compared to about 51,000 Amersham +Chalfont St Giles Missendens Wendover. (see below though)
They also cited the M40 route would add marginally to the distance and journey time . It was not as straight.
.
Of course since then the tunelling of route 3 has increased and therefore it could be argued that the cost argument is no longer pertinent. Following the M40 would be less damaging to the AONB and preserve its current contigent value as a whole landscape and the community that it supports.
However I checked the population of Princes Risborough (7,900 in town which is 9 miles from M40) Gerrards Cross Village (7,000) Beaconsfield (12,000) this gives a combined village population of 28,000. All three villages are as diffuse and have old town new town as those on route 3. All the villages/towns have more rural environs with housing (some shared between the two groups) so there is not much difference there.
However the overall social demography of the effected populations is different basically poorer and less salubrious
As CPRE have revealed much of the tunnels are for urban population/geographic difficulties and the Govt have renegade on their protection of the Countryside.
Chiltern Board new report shows the contingent damage to the un-tunneled section of AONB is around 0.75Bn. This must be added to the damage to the tunneled section and the area as a whole.
The cost of full tunneling is 0.3Bn extra over current plans cost yet it has been refused risking 0.75 + Bn damage
Lutz, London
In addition to all the comments for and against the scheme, there is the factor of capital expenditure in the civil and construction industries which is key political consideration - i.e. the injection of government monies into the economy in the same fashion as in Japan from the late 80s, is one of, if not the principle, politicians motivation for this project.
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England
Chiltern Lad, we can discuss how much this affects people along the route if you like. My opinion is that you are massively massively exaggerating the effects, but we can debate that.
The problem is that your argument is incompatible with your other argument that it should go along existing transport corridors. The M1 and M40 corridors are both heavily populated and any route along either of those corridors would affect a lot more people, and almost certainly a lot more property demolitions. You are going to have to explain why affecting a relatively small number of people is such a terrible traversty but affecting a far larger number people by another route isn't. (And no, I don't buy the argument that anything's OK just so long as there's a motorway somewhere nearby.)
You can credibly argue one or the other. You cannot credibly argue both.
Ian Reed, Tamworth
It does not need to be built to start with. As has been shown time & again by those who have looked into this white elephant.
As for planting trees along the route, this does nothing in preserving areas of outstanding natural beauty or perhaps like Justin Greening once said about ancient woodlands of which we in this country have so little left, "Just move them to one side". What a stupid statement! But then that seems to be the way of those in Government, not being in the real world.
Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex
The biggest impediment to major capital projects in the past was MONEY and so the passing of this bill puts HS2 in unique position of having funds to be built guaranteed by both Houses of Parliament !
Its time those who live along its route switched tactics from opposition on grounds of "no money" which no longer applies to working to gain benefits like getting trees planted and something better than the ugly noise barriers on HS1 !
On Sunday Michael Portillo travelled to Oslo on a railway through a forest of trees in fact far more trees than you see on motorways !
As for claims 20 years blight well these projects move along as they built so apart from stations much of the route is affected for a relatively short time as workers move on to next section especially a new main line railway several hundred miles long .
Chiltern Lad, London/Chilterns
That someone is upset whatever the Route is no moral,ethical, or logical response to the many issues regarding the current route and its damage to a protected AONB and the individual victims of the scheme who will be asset stripped and held in Limbo for 20 years.
"that someone is upset" is a cynial and indolent response to the real issues and work that should be applied to the issue.
Morevover it is no answer to the question on the lack of transparency in respect of the choice of Route 3 against the advice of the Consulting Engineers and to the detriment of AONB SSI.
HS2 could follow the major transport corridors. These were refused on cost grounds intiaily. The cost of Route three (for engineering reasons ) has required much more tunnels and cost. This argument became void.
It does not make HS2 comparable to HS1 which uses transport corridors and was a route determined after many years of consultation and review.
The original route was to run through South London.