Transport and the UK 'spending review'

[chow_34]

You'll have to excuse I've been at this for weeks, reading literally hundreds of pages of technical documents in order to write my own take on the whole HS2 project. The more I get into it the more I agree that it should be built but I am also begging to see the the anti HS2 lobby who say they are working "on a grass routes level" acting more like q government propaganda machine every day. Over playing some figures and under playing others. There is no way they are going to make me believe that they are working for the national interest and not their own selfish wants.

[Ameecher]

I think people generally are less against Crossrail because there is more of a percieved need for it.

[EXTspotter]

In general I think the entire country would benefit from a loop of service around london, negating a need to travel via the capital for certain journeys. For instance today I went home to Newton Abbot from Guildford via Reading, which could be an example of connecting between two lines with trains running to different London stations.

[Dave]

Though I muse admit, the East-West rail plan for Hertfordshire connecting the mainlines somewhere between London and Peterborough would be incredibly useful. Since there's currently no way across by rail unless you go down into London or Up to Peterborough. Something to at least connect the Eastcoast to the Midland and Westcoast mainlines. (Stevenage-Luton/Bedford-Milton Keyens would be pretty good)

Pretty much what you're asking for is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_line Trackbed pretty much all in place too.

East-West Rail Link is one of the (very) long term aims of Chiltern, eventually.

[Chris]

East-West Rail Link is one of the (very) long term aims of Chiltern, eventually.

As well as re-opening much of the former GCR line. The GCR's original plan not only included a line to London, bit also a line skirting around London to join up to a channel tunnel, creating a useful freight corridor. It was just a couple of decades too early.

[Kevo00]

General thoughts on this issue:

1. Its unclear whether cuts in a slow growth period are a bad idea or not. It worked for Thatcher in the 1980s, but then caused a recession in the 1989-92 period and another one now. The Geddes Axe of 1922 cut government spending dramatically, however, and is blamed for plunging the UK into slow growth during the inter-war period, although a lot of the cuts were just getting rid of WW1 spending. The world escaped from the 1930s depression by starting WW2, so there is no real long run evidence about whether the infrastructure investments of the time made a difference, although the UK didn't spend much money during this period and living standards did start to rise in the later 1930s. Canada did supposedly grow quickly after cutting in the 1990s, but their economy is very different to ours.
2. The link between transport and economic growth is actually quite hard to prove empirically. Often the cart comes before the horse, such as in the Bristol case. Usually economic growth generates more transport users, not the other way round. Note that when we had railways literally everywhere on this island development didn't happen literally everywhere on this island. Transport has to be built where people want to go, not just for the sake of it. Midland Metro and Sheffield Supertram did not make money for several years (infact I think Midland Metro is still loss making, despite the expansion plans).
3. In terms of spending on infrastructure within the UK, I think we have to recognise that the London area, which I define quite widely (anywhere in the Network Railcard zone) is just about the best functioning industrial district we have, for finance, creative industries, and as a headquarters city. Its close to the continent and via air to the US and BRIC countries. Unless we suddenly discover oil in Barnsley or similar its the place most likely to pull us out of slow growth. Transport built in London is more likely to be well used (which is why the bus fares are still quite low, as in other cities buses really just exist to transport the elderly and schoolchildren).
4. Instead of HS2 I'd like to see the following projects considered:
1) Crossrail - is hopefully a given now, but I remember John Craven announcing this on Newsround so I won't hold my breath.
2) The Varsity Line - badly needed
3) Crossrail 2 - the Chelsea-Hackney line
4) A Waterloo-Bank-Liverpool Street link
5) Extend the Bakerloo line via Camberwell to Peckham Rye, or perhaps Lewisham. Also consider a tube extension in the Croydon direction, as London Stations - Croydon stations is NR's most popular journey.
6) In the long run develop towards a double decker Super Metro in the South East, gradually replacing commuter services on the older lines. Then IC services could be sped up on these core sections, essentially doing HS2's proposed job.
5. As for Bristol, if the need is that bad, why not raise capital for a metro privately?

[EXTspotter]

For a city like Bristol, the money needed for a metro/light rail system would be huge. I am sure there would be a good number of people who would use the service, however, if we look at Edinburgh as an example, the road system in central edinburgh has been hell on earth for a number of years. In bristol roads in the centre arent that wide. Even arterial roads are usually wide enough to include a tram and keep the same two lanes per direction (if the lanes are shrunk and pavements narrowed). In bristol to accommodate traffic on roads like the A4 the road just isn't wide enough to accommodate light rail. If they did a manchester and took over the Avonmouth line it may be cheaper but there woould still need to be building of on-street sections in the centre of Bristol. Surely if there was a business case for this project, it would have been done by now.

[teccuk]

Apologies, did not mean this to be about Bristol. On that note Bristol's rail network is poor and could only ever serve a fraction of the population in the sub region. I'd be one of the first to support ripping it up if a sensible alternative was suggested.

Neither was it specifically on Crossrail, although yes, I do think that sharing the 16bn across the 8 English 'Core Cities' would offer those cities the chance to completely revolutionise their city regions, metro's or at the very least trams, linking airports to city centres to high tech business parks already existing on the peripheries as one example a la Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Toulouse... cities that pay their way. Rather then just imporving access between Heathrow and Barking or wherever.

Whether the link between transport infrastructure and economic growth can be proven, in people's minds, there is a link. Heads of the valleys road, docklands light railway, Sheffield Supertram and regen of the sheaf valley... Cameron said only yesterday very proudly to the CBI that 30bn of transport investment was to stay.

These are political decisions not based upon academic theory. Not even referencing academic theory. Its quite naive to think they have even considered 'core periphery'. Which is why rail almost gets away with it, but the day-to-day journeys people actually care about, commuting prices and bus journeys (Kev, seriously Bus is important in provincial cities) are bearing the brunt.

[dasy2k1]

TBH in terms of bang for buck i think electrifying the MML from bedford to leeds should come before HS2... then buy some Pantograph,transformer,standard,trailer coaches for the 222s ( bi mode with none of the faff and high costs of IEP)

re enstate the project rio route from STP to MAN via the MML (TPX from manchester to sheffield is allways rammed with people wanting to access the east mids from manchester)

with bi modes you dont need to electrify the hope vally line just yet (save that one for a few years) but dont end up with the stupid practice of running diesels under the new shiny wires!


As we are in a recession with high unemployment use the electrification project as an excuse to retrain those who cant find work in their existing trade kickstarting the economy at the same time....

[Ameecher]

The main thing going for GW electrification is that it gives the Thameslink fleet somewhere to work rather than having them needlessly sitting around or being scrapped. 319s would be ideal for Thames Valley commuter runs but if you electrify the MML there's no need for them.