Re: HS2
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:39 pm
oh come on lads, I wanted to see how it would play out lmao
And of course all that extra local capacity opens up all sorts of doors for freight.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:01 amWell hey, I'm not the only person who works in the rail industry (strategic modelling of business planning and future investments, myself), and opinions do vary. Although I haven't worked on HS2 myself, the capacity benefits as assessed by those who have (in Network Rail, not HS2) are huge, much bigger than any other options, and could make a real difference to things like commuting capacity which would be extremely difficult, time-consuming, expensive and damaging to try to replicate in other ways.
Bring it to the HS2 thread then. I'm sure your professional transport policy economics are as valid and interesting as the professional flood defence economics I have to put up with as part of my day job. They really are dandy. Does it have anything to do with the Treasury Green book? I don't hope so.IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:14 pmIt is interesting to know that you both think this, and think it amounts to a cogent reason. As a professional transport policy economist, who has carried out many rail project appraisals, I have a more nuanced view of such things. But this is not a place to into detailed HS2 debates.plodder wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:45 pmLol yes.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:56 pmIt's to increase rail capacity. And yes, it's expensive, but there aren't any better ways to provide the same huge increase in capacity as HS2.
Wrong thread. Bring your a-game.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:55 amWell exactly. HS2 is worse than that. While pretending to be "green".
tough, i've kept it haha. Anyway, do carry on :)El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:18 pmBy all means! (Delete this post though, it's sh.t)
That was in part by way of expressing disgust at the suggestion I might learn something from that dippy engineer talking on youtube. I now see from the style of debate that is apparently acceptable that an expletive might have been a better reaction.plodder wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:31 amBring it to the HS2 thread then. I'm sure your professional transport policy economics are as valid and interesting as the professional flood defence economics I have to put up with as part of my day job. They really are dandy. Does it have anything to do with the Treasury Green book? I don't hope so.IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:14 pmIt is interesting to know that you both think this, and think it amounts to a cogent reason. As a professional transport policy economist, who has carried out many rail project appraisals, I have a more nuanced view of such things. But this is not a place to into detailed HS2 debates.
It started this work in June 2008. The main report is 140 pages long and the second paragraph of the main report states:Our railways are getting full. At some point, in the not too distant future, our railways will have no more spare capacity. Passenger numbers continue to grow, despite the economic downturn, with the railways now carrying more people per year – 1.3 billion – than at any time since 1946 when the network was almost twice the size.
The start of this work was before either the Conservatives or Labour backed the concept of High Speed Rail. So this is what it is "for".The key aim of the New Lines Programme is to meet future needs for additional rail capacity. A new line will provide additional capacity in two ways:
- Through the provision of capacity on the New Line itself; and
- Through the associated release of capacity on the classic rail network.
A year after that, at the 2010 General Election, the Labour manifesto said:The case for high-speed rail is neither that it is visionary nor totemic of a modern transport infrastructure. It is quite simply that it addresses the central challenges of our transport network: congestion, enhanced capacity, economic growth and the environment.
So, yeah, enhancing capacity was absolutely central to the reasoning for HS2 from its very genesis, and was openly discussed as such by many contributors to the debate at a very early stage. Encouraging modal shift from aeroplanes to rail was also a very strong reason.Britain needs to invest in modern, high-capacity and lowcarbon transport infrastructure. At the heart of our growth plan is the commitment to a new high-speed rail line, linking North and South. Built in stages, the initial line will link London to Birmingham, Manchester, the East Midlands,
Sheffield and Leeds, and then to the North and Scotland. By running through-trains from day one, cities including Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle and Liverpool will also be part of the initial network. Journey times will be slashed – those from the West Midlands to London will be as little as 31 minutes. We will consult fully on legislation to take forward our high-speed rail plans within the next Parliament.
High-speed rail is not just about faster journey times. It will free up capacity on existing intercity rail lines, enabling more rail freight, commuter and local services.
Which is odd, because if they wanted to kill domestic short-haul flights they could just ban them like France has done recently. No need to spunk £100 billion on a trainline.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:18 pmHowever, when the Conservatives backed the idea in 2008, they put the reasoning firmly on the environment - avoiding the need to increase capacity for air transport, and encouraging modal shift to rail. When the Labour government eventually also backed the idea a year later, they also had the same reasoning - trying to kill the domestic short-haul flight market.
That's a very odd response - France can only realistically do this because they already have their High Speed rail network that gives a realistic alternative to internal flights.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:07 pmWhich is odd, because if they wanted to kill domestic short-haul flights they could just ban them like France has done recently. No need to spunk £100 billion on a trainline.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:18 pmHowever, when the Conservatives backed the idea in 2008, they put the reasoning firmly on the environment - avoiding the need to increase capacity for air transport, and encouraging modal shift to rail. When the Labour government eventually also backed the idea a year later, they also had the same reasoning - trying to kill the domestic short-haul flight market.
It's certainly what employees would prefer. Some employers are enthusiastically embracing it, others less so. By no means set in stone.plodder wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:25 pmOnly a small % of people can work from home, and they tend to be male professionals (as far as I remember, anyway).
So without wanting to nitpick I'd be fascinated to see the evidence base behind your enthusiastic assertion that commuting is going to be on the decline over the longer term.
https://www.economicsobservatory.com/wh ... ng-to-workAccording to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Labour Force Survey, mainly working from home was a rising trend before the pandemic, but it amounted to less than 5% of working adults over the age of 16 prior to 2019. Understanding Society reported that in January and February 2020, 11.8% of workers often or always worked at home, and a further 17.7% sometimes worked at home. This implies that more than 70% of the entire UK labour force was commuting most working days prior to the pandemic.
ONS data from its Coronavirus and the social impacts on Great Britain survey indicate that it was common for more than 40% of the population to have worked from home during the pandemic, but Decision Maker Panel data show this varies by industry (Haskel, 2021). Having tasted the benefits of working from home, spending two to three days a week at home is the most common expected working pattern post-Covid-19. In a new UK survey of working adults in the UK, we find that many would prefer a drastic change in the pre-pandemic pattern of five days a week commuting.
Having reduced commuting substantially during lockdowns, working adults in the UK are keen to commute just two to three days a week, and only one in seven expect to return to five days a week commuting. This will contribute a substantial reduction in costs and time travelling to work. Our results show that workers spent on average 29 minutes commuting and spent £5.50 per day on travel and parking costs. Over 60% commuted by private vehicle and 34% by public transport.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-glob ... KKBN29A123In response to the epidemic and pressure for more remote working, commercial real estate owners and employers have promoted the concept of “hybrid” working.
Business surveys show employers envisaging workers spending 60% of their time in the office, while employee surveys generally show a preference for working in the office 40% or even just 20% of the time.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/mark ... king-studyPrivate car use in the UK could fall by up to 10% in coming years if a long-term shift toward more homeworking takes hold in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, according to the country's National Infrastructure Commission.
Under a 'virtual local reality' scenario, where more workers shift from urban to rural areas due to remote working flexibility, public transport use could also fall by up to 25% and demand for energy, waste and water would slip by a single-digit percentage compared to pre-pandemic levels, the commission said in a report published May 13 into behavior changes and infrastructure after COVID-19.
Define "realistic". I've travelled in the UK a lot and have never taken an internal flight. Trains, buses and cars are all real.Gfamily wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:36 pmThat's a very odd response - France can only realistically do this because they already have their High Speed rail network that gives a realistic alternative to internal flights.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:07 pmWhich is odd, because if they wanted to kill domestic short-haul flights they could just ban them like France has done recently. No need to spunk £100 billion on a trainline.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:18 pmHowever, when the Conservatives backed the idea in 2008, they put the reasoning firmly on the environment - avoiding the need to increase capacity for air transport, and encouraging modal shift to rail. When the Labour government eventually also backed the idea a year later, they also had the same reasoning - trying to kill the domestic short-haul flight market.