HS2 will destroy part of our beautiful countryside for the sake of 15mins extra in Birmingham or London
Today i submitted my final comments to the consultation on the proposed HS2 line.
As you will see from the comments below I am totally opposed to the planned line and have yet to be convinced of the value of the line.
This question is about the strategy and wider context (Chapter 1 of the main consultation document)
Do you agree that there is a strong case for enhancing the capacity and performance of Britain’s inter-city rail network to support economic growth over the coming decades?
Your response
No, The argument that the HS2 line will enhance economic viability of the areas on the route is flawed by the fact that the line will not stop in any of the area s on the route.
The question is flawed by two main points.
Firstly, the assumption that High Speed Rail has a proven record of increasing the economic viability, wealth and well being of any of the areas affected or travelled through.
It is clear from cases elsewhere in Europe and indeed in the UK with the case of HS1 that the financial claims prior to the construction of and eventual running of these lines that the economic claims that have been made then and now are exaggerated and misleading.
The only beneficiaries of the line are the destination cities and even this is no proven in many other cases.
The communities that will be marred and in some cases destroyed either physically or due to the environmental damage are the real losers along the route.
They gain no economic benefit and the increased capacity for the current lines is a very hard case to prove and again has not proven as anything other than speculation with the whole premise being that there are vast legions of people waiting to travel that do not currently do so due to a lack of capacity on the current line.
Secondly, The vagueness of the question seems to have been purposely constructed to draw non specific comments that can be dismissed.
The case for high Speed Rail and HS2 not the same as the need for increase capacity.
They are entirely different.
The resolution of any capacity issue has a myriad of resolutions of which HS” is the most expensive and will give the least impact compared with the alternatives which use existing transport corridors and enhanced technology which for instance could enable trains to run closer together thus increasing capacity.
This question is about the case for high speed rail (Chapter 2 of the main consultation document)
Do you agree that a national high speed rail network from London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester (the Y network) would provide the best value for money solution (best balance of costs and benefits) for enhancing rail capacity and performance?
Your response
No.
This question is again misleading. It again confuses the increase in capacity with the need for HS2.
HS2 is not the only option and yet the other options have not been either explored fully or where investigation has taken place the results have not been published or publicised to anything like the same level as the ‘chosen’ route of following only High Speed Rail.
Increased rail travel is a perfectly laudable aim and is something I happily support but this is not the same as supporting High Speed Rail or HS2.
It appears from all the evidence I have seen and heard that any network for High Speed Rail is a gamble and that the route North of Birmingham will be a more financially viable route but even then it is not fully proven.
Also there is no mention of a more expansive network of improvements and also no mention of connection to Wales and Scotland.
The cost benefit analysis seems muddled and unclear as the evidence only concentrates on High Speed Rail.
This question is about how to deliver the Government’s proposed network (Chapter 3 of the main consultation document)
Do you agree with the Government’s proposals for the phased roll-out of a national high speed rail network, and for links to Heathrow Airport and the High Speed 1 line to the Channel Tunnel?
Your response
No
The common sense approach should be to work the areas of most concern first relieving any major bottle necks within the rail network.
The piece meal approach of phasing in the way explained above does not deal with these issues. Working solely on a geographical basis will limit the ability to be proactive in dealing with capacity or bottle neck issues outside a prescribed area.
The question itself highlights the need to connect North and South and yet the first section to be built is from London to Birmingham where the real benefit in breaking down the North South divide would surely be the routes from Birmingham, which already has a high capacity and high speed service, to the North to Manchester and beyond.
The proof of the benefits of the short stretch between Birmingham and London have not been shown in any evidenced fashion to be greater than any of the other proposed areas. It is again an example of the London centric vanity that causes the route to begin here rather than elsewhere which may be of greater national or local benefit.
Another failure of a piece meal approach is that as fashion or government s change so might the ability or wish to deliver the full network leaving white elephant section of HSR.
This question is about the specification for the line between London and the West Midlands (Chapter 4 of the main consultation document)
Do you agree with the principles and specification used by HS2 Ltd to underpin its proposals for new high speed rail lines and the route selection process HS2 Ltd undertook?
Your response
No
The speed set for the project is not a speed being used anywhere else in Europe for HSR.
With the speed set 225/250MPH the actual travel benefit over the initial line will be in the region of 10to 15mins. I have yet to meet a traveller who is driven by the need to arrive only 15 mins sooner in Birmingham or London.
With the speed only being achieved over a relatively small section of the line it is hard to see the real driver behind the need to have the speed set so high.
The other issue with the speed is that it does not take into account the environmental expense this is being achieved at. The speed will create more noise and at the same time draw more energy from the grid at a level far outweighing the benefits the plan began by championing.
The real benefit would be in a non HSR system that more be more able to cope with carrying freight at a higher level and lower cost relieving some road travel where possible.
Given Britain geography the need for HSR and especially on this section is a project that is difficult to justify.
The other concern has to be the non stop nature of the line which automatically restricts the availability to use the service to only those living and /or working in Birmingham or London.
With a huge commuter society which travel from surrounding towns and counties into London or Birmingham to work it is difficult to see the economic driver for a non stop service.
I accept the stops would decrease speeds but it also limits the financial viability of the service cutting off a large amount of paying travellers who are cast to use, what HS2 seems to consider a second class service to get to work.
This question is about the route for the line between London and the West Midlands (Chapter 5 and Annex B of the main consultation document)
Do you agree that the Government’s proposed route, including the approach proposed for mitigating its impacts, is the best option for a new high speed rail line between London and the West Midlands?
Your response
No
The route proposed does not take account of the damage done to communities and the countryside along the route not just the site of the proposed line but also the areas several miles either side of the line which will be affected by vibration and noise blighting the lives of residents and destroying the peace of the countryside and all without a true need for the line.
It could be considered as an act of social vandalism.
The explanation of the route listed above does not fully comprehend the true area of the line to driven through open countryside and villages. It is a rose tinted explanation in the extreme.
Outside of the city areas around London and Birmingham the line is in fact almost exclusively through countryside.
The mitigation plans barely touch the damage that will be caused and are insufficient to address the real affects of the line.
This question is about the Appraisal of Sustainability (Chapter 5 of the main consultation document)
Do you wish to comment on the Appraisal of Sustainability of the Government’s proposed route between London and the West Midlands that has been published to inform this consultation?
Your response
The AoS is weak at best it does nothing to account for the very real environmental damage to be caused by the line and also as mentioned previously the fact that the speed issue further reduces any claim to ‘Green’ credentials.
The lack of an Environmental Impact Study in the report but instead planned to be undertaken after a decision on the plans and route has been agreed is a disgrace and shows the entire project being conducted with its eyes closed as far as being able to fully assess the impacts of the plans.
This must surely also limit the extent to which the mitigation plans can be planned or costed if you do not have a required piece of information prior to making these plans.
This is a weakness that in my view renders the whole plan flawed and unable to be properly assessed or commented upon.
The decision not to include the EIS seems to be yet another example of the consultation being done after a decision has already been taken and thus pointless.
This question is about blight and compensation (Annex A of the main consultation document)
Do you agree with the options set out to assist those whose properties lose a significant amount of value as a result of any new high speed line?
Your response
No.
I have serious concerns that the scheme as shown so far is too prescriptive and does not fully take into account the real breadth of what might be interpreted as ‘blight’.
As such the system needs to be more open and more flexible to really deal with the cases of those that will suffer blight from the construction period which may affect areas which are not part of the proposed but will suffer the blight of traffic levels in rural roads and villages on route to the build sites.
Also once the line is completed the blight of noise and vibration may cover a much wider area and the scheme needs to take account of this and currently i do not feel this is the case.
Loading ...
