I’m slightly concerned that we’re descending into another referendum campaign.
Earlier this week about 30 M’s got on a bus for the launch of the Yes to High Speed Rail campaign, holding aloft ‘Yes’ signs in favour of the proposed new line from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Highlights included a photo op with Pete Waterman and picking up the obligatory press release from Campaign director Professor David Begg, with prompt lines on how good HS2 will be for the region/economy/investment.
Despite the £32bn price tag (I’m not bitter about the AV thing at all) the project has backing from Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs alike, and on the face of it this should be an easy sell.
Britain’s rail infrastructure is antiquated and over used – every day Britain runs more trains than Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Portugal and Norway combined, and despite having less track, runs more services than either France or Italy. Rail use is at an all time high, so surely a government backing expanded capacity and quicker journey times is common sense?
There’s an economic and environmental imperative here. Building the line creates jobs and investment in the north, will increase intercity travel, attract foreign inward investment and help to reduce carbon emissions by providing a viable alternative to internal flights and using the car, and with high speed rail on the continent, and China building three times our current track length by 2015, surely we can’t afford to fall behind the rest of the world?
So why is there a big blue battle bus heading off on a tour of the country?
Simple answer, some people don’t like it, which is a golden rule in politics. Building a colossal great line right through the English countryside is bound to annoy at least a few Conservative associations and, as night follows day, draw the fire of the Telegraph, the Mail, and the Taxpayers' Alliance who’ve decided that high speed rail, which that economic powerhouse, erm, the Ukraine, will be enjoying by 2012, is a rich man’s train paid for by the poor.
As an aside, I’ve never understood the Taxpayers' Alliance; they seem to think they have a mandate to represent all taxpayers when they really only represent the Tory ones. Their first demand in their ‘verdict on the coalition’ is that the government scrap the 50% top rate of tax, which I’m not sure would help the poorest taxpayers, but still, I digress.
Whilst there is no referendum to be fought, there is a still a public relations battle to be won. In my humble opinion there is a pressing need to modernise our rail service and a good business and environmental case to back that up, but, having just tried to access the ‘Yes’ campaign's website, it appears to be down, so I can’t tell you what they think.
Probably best to catch that bus then.
A High Speed Future?
by Martin Shapland / 24 Jun 2011 09:37
Upgrading Britain’s rail system means more capacity, is green, improves journey times and provides an injection of cash which will help create jobs and boost manufacturing; surely it’s a no brainer?
Comments
scottspeig / June 24 2011 10:18am
Its not really a no-brainer though is it!?
The whole London-Scotland thing is no longer true - it gets to Birmingham and then joins the main line just north of there and so it links Birmingham to London - How you class Birmingham as North is beyond me (As a lad from Preston, anything south of Liverpool is "The South! Although if you're a Londoner, I suppose anything north of Watford Gap is "The North") and so it is an expensive play thing.
The speed issue isn't all that great either. Why we need a high speed rail is beyond me, we can't even run our existing trains at full speed which leaves me with the next point.
Surely we should be upgrading the existing infrastructure rather than creating a 2 tier railway system. Why not put the money into dealing with the current system and improve it?
Paul McKeown / June 24 2011 1:21pm
I find the current proposals disappointingly unambitious. The extensions to Manchester and Leeds are to be built in some far distant future (Phase II to be opened in 2032-33) according to current planning, with no time-scale at all for onward connections to Glasgow or Edinburgh.
49 minutes from Birmingham into London will be marvellous, but surely nothing could do more to bridge the North - South divide than for Manchester and Leeds to be connected into London by an 80 minute train service and into Heathrow by a 70 minute service? They would become part of the London commuter belt, easing the pressure on property in London and raising employment in the North.
I would have thought every MP representing a constituency in the metropolitan heartlands of the North West and in West and South Yorkshire worth their salt would be pushing hard for a single phase opening in 2026.
If there were to be be two phases, surely Glasgow, Newcastle and Edinburgh should be in the second phase rather than altogether ignored?
And, given the congestion at London's airports, why are Birmingham International, East Midlands and Manchester airports not served directly from London by HS2? There would surely be benefits for these regional airports to be 40 to 80 minutes from central London, with increased employment and economic prospects there and a significant increase in what (would become) London's airport capacity.
All in all, although I welcome HS2, I find the proposals disappointingly unimaginative.
As for the Tax Payers Alliance? Ha! Sat in front of their halves of mild, muttering and grumbling away in the saloon bars of crumbling old Constitutional Clubs, unhappy with anything that has happened in Britain since the 1950s. Their great grandparents objected to the Victorians building sewers, civic buildings, steam railways and iron clad battleships. Who cares about their mumblings? You could do away with taxation altogether, leaving law and order to the local squire, and they would still grumble, things are just not what they used to be and the country is going to hell in a handcart. If you gave them what they wanted, they would curse you for doing it.