News: HS2 Communications spending nears £5 million

 

Nearing the £5 million mark. HS2 spending on communications has quadruppled in the lasy year

Nearing the £5 million mark. HS2 spending on communications has quadruppled in the last year

 

High Speed 2 Ltd more than doubled its spending on communications this year compared to last.

In the run up to key milestones in the troubled rail scheme the company charged with delivering the high speed rail service between London, Birmingham and Leeds with a future spur to travel on to Scotland saw its communications budget  rise to £4,498,557 in 2013-2014 from £1,338,664 in the previous year.

The spending increase has at its source a  ratcheting up of activity in consultation with communities who are set to be impacted by the new high speed line with close to £ 4 million being spent in  the current year as against £1.17 million in 2012.

Other areas which saw spending increases include £89,000 being spent on ‘special advice’  – compared to spending only £6,000 last year – and  “collateral and film” costs that quadrupled this year from the £30,000 budgeted last year.

Both the HS2 web site and press office also received significant  increases in spending. Only opinion surveys showed a reduction in spending on last year -down from £36,960 last year to £4,536 in the current year.

Communication costs this year are at their highest levels since HS2 Ltd was created in 2009. In 2010 the communications budget for the company peaked at £3,02 million before falling to £1.48 million and £1.33 million in subsequent years.

Interview: Professor John Tomaney “The high speed rail scheme is proceeding with very little evidence of any economic benefits.”

 

"No evidence of economic benefits of high speed 2" Professor John Tomaney

“No evidence of economic benefits of high speed 2” Professor John Tomaney

 

 

 

The really big arguments about HS2  are about whether it will bring benefits to the UK economy, not  its impact on the more well healed part of  the south of England

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professor John Tomaney has no particular axe to grind about High Speed 2.

The academic from the prestigious Bartlett School of Urban Design and the Built Environment at University College London (UCL) has spent a great deal of time looking into the economic benefits of already existing high speed projects in France, Spain, South Korea and China as well as our own.He hasn’t found any evidence of benefits to the scheme that make up the major planks of the Government’s case.

The Government see High Speed rail’s role in “rebalancing” economic growth by providing fast links to businesses in the north to the UK’s economic well springs in London and south. The £40 billion scheme would be essential in directing new investments around the country and would in turn see increased jobs and the heightened activity in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester.  On the evidence  of Lille, Tokyo and Shanghai though Professor Tomaney is doubtful that the rail link will achieve this.

Instead with the UK already ‘infrastructure rich’ he argues that investment  in developing skills and technology would be better placed to enhance regional growth. Long range investment over a 30 year period and similar to the ‘long game’ planning envisaged for regional development agencies (RDAs) would also help. The Coalition government abolished RDAs and replaced them with smaller Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)

Professor Tomaney gave evidence to the Transport Select Committee that explored ( and dismissed) the Government’s business case for HS2 but ultimately backed the scheme. His evidence to the Committee can be read here.

He discusses his evidence and more about the scheme below.

Live Blog: High Speed 2 Bill Second Reading

 HS2 and You are following the debate on the second reading of the High Speed 2 Bill with news and comments both on and off the tracks

House of Commons set yo debate the second reading of the High Speed Rail Bill

House of Commons set to debate the second reading of the High Speed Rail Bill

 

23.57 SUMMARY

  • The Government has secured a second reading for the High Speed Rail bill more than comfortably seeing off a ‘rebellion’ by 451 votes  to 50
  • Labour has come of the fence and voted with the Government on the bill. They said that the Higgins report and the furher extesnsion of route to Crewe were the reasons for it shift of position.
  • The Bill will now go onto its committee stage.

Thats it from us.  Good night

23.40

Well there you have it. The Government have secured a second reading to the High Speed Rail Bill, easily as it happens.  A majority of over 400 members means that the bill now goes  into committee. Rebel leaders spoke of a cosy alliance betwwen Labour and the Conservatives for the bill and this made their efforts to de railo the bill a pretty hopeless quest.

There’s still a great deal more to happen at Westminster as the peitioning on the impacts of the route on local communities will be put to the cross party grouping of MP’s.

We can expect the Goivernment to launch a new compensation scheme for properties owners affected by the line – there was a common theme from opponents to the rail line criticising the current scheme  so it will be interesting to see how much of the criticism they have taken on board.

Highlights for me during the day has to be the surprise annoucement by David Lidington to resign from the Giovernment if mitigation measures to reduce the impact of Hs2in (particular a Chiltern Tunnel) are not in place by the time the Commons next debates the bill. This vote may come after the next general election and Lidington may not have a Government job to resign from.

23.35

Here’s the vote and the Government have secured a second reading for HS2 Bill by 452 votes to 41

23.33

Rebellion? What rebellion. A 400 plus majority is pretty stronfg indication that the case for Hs2 is accepted by the overwhelming majority of MPs

Maybe we should think of another word for this now that the vote is in. We’ll be looking for more reaction to the vote and posting a summary of the debate and the other stops along the way for Hs2 after tonight.

23.26

Deputy Speaker is back in his chair and the second vote is due soon. No question that the Government are through.

23.25

Waiting for the second vote – a formality really, the Government are home and dry. Chris Ship has a view on hnow much of that 50 was made up of Tory MPs

23.19

The amendment has been lost, pretty comprehensively. The vote is closer to the Spectators predictions than the BBC so well done Fraser Nelson’s clan. There’s now going to be a vote on the substantive motion (unamended) to give the bill a second reading.

23.16

The tellers – are facing the Speakers Chair. I think we are there. Eyes 50 No 451

23.10

Apologies, we know to expect a vote – that’s what has been going on since the Government finished the debate. We’re waiting for the result. I have to say that although members are no longer debating the chatter in he house is as loud as it was while the debate was going on. Not the set piece moment of the Mother Of Parliaments – a bit of a damp squib really. Not helped by 5  minutes time limits for speeches. Any way we should soon know how much potency there is on the Government benches among the Hs2 oppositionistas. The BBC reported 30 MPs would vote against and the Spectator called it at higher at 40.

23.09

Lobby doors are closed and we are expecting a vote now.

 

23.03

Teller have been selected for the amendment now.

23.01

Government response now from Robert Goodwill.

Construction will begin in 2017 he confirms. On  environmental impact he admits there will but there will be” no net loss in biodiversity and no net loss of wildlife.” He’s boasting about the Government’s extensive consultation.

Now  onto the compensation scheme that was a big feature of the oppostion assault on the bill this evening. Goodwill says; “People near the scheme will receive compensations”.  An further  compensation scheme will be launched by the Government and there will be no distance measure for applicants. The express buy scheme is already in place for properties affected by blight. “We believe that they are fair and provide value of money to the taxt payer.”

He thanks Labour for their support and cheekily says “Tt was their idea in the first place.” The Government will respond to the phase 2 consultation in November he tells Greenwoood.

Costs have increased because of the “costs of  comprehensive mitigation” he says, opponents cannot have the argumenrt both ways on HS2.

“Tonight the house faces a profound decisons. It must be satisfied about HS2 and that all the appropriate measure are in place environmentally.” That’s Goodwin down and we are moving to a division on the amendment.

 

22.40

We are in the back straight of the debate now with Lilian Greenwood from the Labour benches closing the debate for Labour. She is on to the WCML’s challenging twists gradients and curves that continue to inhibit bringing it up to speed for the 21st century.  “Lack of capacity is not an abstract problem, irts demands are already being felt.” The crumbling edge of quality is what midlands passengers are experiencing as a result. “The message is clear we need  more capacity.Hs2 is the plan to provide it.” She roles in against those who ask for an upgrade of the existing linbe ” asucgh a project would deliver half the capacity of the existing line,” she says. NO prospect of the bill receiving royal assent before the next general election is a major drawback Greenwood has said. She slams the compensation schemes travails before the courts.

Now we are back to costs and she credits Labour for getting the costs spiral under control. she says Labour has ensured “proper value for tax payers money” and that Labour will be a “critical friend” of bill and  “the taxpayers friend”.

On to the consultation for phase 2 Greenwood wants to decouple the vote tonight on the future route of the track in the north.

She’s onto changes and mitigation and says ” unlike the mayor of London we dont  ignore serious concerns for the environment.” The Mayor parcelled opposition to Hs2 as nimbies.

Greenwood finishes by calling on members to give the bill a second reading.

 

22.38

Mark Reckless is up and speaking enthusiastically in support of HS2.  “I think there is a degree of pessimism bias. Long distance rail travel has grown by 5.2 per cent  a year and yet we are predicting going forward that it will grow by 2 per cent. we need more realistic projections on benefits and costs.”

22.26

Philip Lee admits that he spent the evening being baffled by the speeches of  his fellow members. He’s going to abstain tonight on the bill. His bafflement is about the bills aims to transport people quickly while Leee thinks that future investment should be about transporting data faster. Investment in advanced technology or broadband speeds he argued was more likely to  benefit the economy.

22.19

Barry Sherman (Huddersfield ) was a HS2 backer. In the debate he made clear that he was now against the scheme being unconvinced on the benefits to the north.

Not often that you see a Labour MP in agreement with the Institute of Economic Affair, but we’ve had a few strange bedfellows cosying up to each other tonight.

22.16

We spoke about the all important petitioning committee – effectrively the MPs that will be involved with deciding on what parts of the route they will change  from petitioners concerned with parts of the route. One member of that committee has gone public tonight on which way he’s voting,

 

22.15

MPs are surfacing on twitter now with their view on the debate. Here are a sample of the more interesting ones. From Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) who’s against the scheme:

Andy Slaughter ( Hammersmith) where Hs2 will cut through Worwood Scrubs and see a terminal at Old Oak Common. He supports the scheme but has problems with the impact on the Scrubs and the powers that the Mayor London, Boris Johnson, will have over development in the area. The Mayor does not go down well in Mr Slaughter’s constituency for providing affordable housing.

22:00 SUMMARY

Here’s a quick update of the debate and reactions so far

  • The HS2 bill looks set to get its second reading in the Commons. Labour will support the Government in the lobby tonight and back the bill.
  • The rebels are resigned to the bill making progress and criticised the Government and Labour’s “cosy alliance”.
  • MPs have been limited to making 5 minute speeches. A vote is expected at around 10.30pm

21.41

Stewart Andrew is speaking. He’s a Leeds MP and pro the bill. But take a look at the audience listening to his upbeat speech on the high speed benefits to the north.

21.29

John McDonnell MP for Hillingdon and no stranger to pushing back on major infrastructure projects impacting on local people – his constituency would have been under  the concrete of Heathrow’s third runway expansion had happened. Curiously the MP who made the case against airport expansion by arguing for better rail is opposed to HS2. Why? Its complicated. The Davies review into airport expansion wont report until after the next election so Mr McDonnell says that he cannot tell his constituents what will happen to Heathrow (will it remain  the UK’s major transport hub is one of the questions Davis will have to answer).

 21.04

Cheryl Gillan spoke about “cosy alliances” in her speech opposing the bill second reading but its a good way to describe Gary Streeter, Adrian Sanders and Ben Bradshaw are going to abstain on voting for bill second reading, They are respectively the Tory member for South Devon, the Lib Dem member for Torbay and the Labour MP for Exeter. I don’t suppose Ms Gillan is against this kind of cross party cosying.  We’ve tweeted messrs Streater, Sanders and Bradshaw to get the reasons behind their abstentions.

20.56

Signs of life from MPs on twitter. Adrian Saunders – Lib Dem MP for Torbay – has retweeted the following on fellow MPs abstainiong on HS2 tonight. Its the south  west contingent of MPs who were being organised by Ben Bradshaw to put the Government’s feet to the fire to secure increased investment to local commuter trains as the price for supporting Hs2.  Looks these MPs are not too happy with action since this threat.

20.40

Lyn Brown MP for West Ham is making a telling intervention which must be music to the ears of  Camden’s and anyone else who wants to restore the HS1/Hs2 link.

Ms Brown points to the fact that although it has an international station that links with HS1 from Kings Cross, Stratford International station does not take you directly to Europe,  much to the chagrin of Robin Wales Newham’s mayor and a host of east London boosters that include Westfield. She has a point. Newham is at the centre of the Olympic development and the whole rationale behind it was to regenerate east London. So why not forget about Euston and make the link via Stratford International? That Newham argument is here.

 

20.35

Natascha Engel has just finished speaking. She is another oponent of the bill and a signatory of the Gillan cross party amendment. Bill Cash is speaking now and is following through on the shortcomings of the compensation scheme  for HS2 . Cash wants a property bond scheme that he proposed to the select committee to deal with compensation claims. Cash says the economic case has not been made and the compensation levels are  not adequate. He wants the select committee to look at the impact on serious blight that will affect residents close to the scheme. He has closed by encouraging the transport secretary to look at the property bond scheme. We will have to look at it as well

20.31

Jonathan Edwards speech has raised again the Barnet Consequential into the HS2 debate but what are they?

The Plaid Cymru MPs complaint is that Hs2 does not benefit the people of Wales although Welsh tax payers are paying for it. The share out of the nations spoils amongst the regions was anticipated by the Callaghan Labour Government in the 1970s as the fairest way to distribute resources to what was expected to be a newly devolved Scotland and Wales after a devolution bill passed the commons to shore up suport for a minority Labour government from the Scottish Nationalist Party.  The vote did not work out that way but the Barnett formula was retained and has pretty much come into its own in these post devolution times.  Got it? This may help.

20.22

Government whips are having an easy night of it as far as getting this particular measure through the house. They’ll gain further comfort from a ComRes poll of MPs on their  support for HS2.  The pollsters questioned 150 MPs on Hs2 and found that only 30 per cent of MPs were completely opposed to the line.53 per cent of MPs supported the bill. As far as the representation of opposition forces within the three main parties they are evenly split at 30 per cent a piece.  No wonder the vote tonight is whipped Andrew Hawkins of ComRes says;

Despite the whipped vote tonight, our poll reveals the true extent of unease among MPs of all parties towards Hs2.

That poll is here.

20.01

While we were summarising the latest the Scottish National Party were speaking in support of the bill. The Scotsman reported Alex Salmonds support of the scheme and that an  pro independence vote will not get in the way of construction.  Ministers might demur from that view. You can read the Scotsman story here.

Plaid Cyrmu’s Jonathan Edwards – my name sake –  have caught the speakers eye and will be giving his take on the scheme  from this indication;

Plaid Cyrmu’s position is the complete opposite to that of the nationalist breathren above Hadrian Wall. They see no benefits of the high speed scheme in its current form benefitting Wales.

 

 19.36 SUMMARY

Lets  summarise where we are with the debate so far

  • Labour is backing the Government at the second reading debate on high speed 2.
  • The transport Secretary Patrick McCloughlin has said that HS2 has ” the power to change the nation profoundly and for the better.” 
  • Labour has accused the Government of “years of delay and mismanagement” of Hs2 which has  caused costs to rise but  said that the Higgin report and the extension of the line  to Crewe has swung them into support for the bill.
  • Critics of the bill have acccused the Government and Labour of a “cosy alliance” but have conceded that the  rebellion will not derail the bill.

 19.31

HS2  is a “vanity project” according to Kate Hoey MP. She’s the Vauxhall MP in London and not directly affected by the line but she thinks that there are better ways for £50 billion to be spent. She wants a Labour Chancellor to look at the scheme again. I don ‘t  think she was listening to the Labour front bench.

19.29

Dan Byles, another rebel, has questioned whether there were enough resources behinds the public consultation that HS2 Ltd have conducted on the impacts of the rail line on local communities. Local voices in his consituency have not been heard and  are now reliant on the select committee and the petitioning phase of the bill. MPs that will sitting  on the petitioning committee will be marked men and women. I will post shortly on who they are and what they will be expected to do.

19.21

Robert Fiello MP is up and oppposed to the scheme. He has hit upon dealing with the capacity issues by introducing double decker trains. This has been an option that was looked at by the Government  and there is a useful use of 140 characters on twitter which explains the problems with it.

 

19.09

Back to the Commons and we have had a string of 5 minute speeches from supporters of HS2.

Graham Stringer former leader of Manchester City Council and one of the cities MPs was on his feet when we were searching twitter.

Glenda Jacskon was next and made the case for high speed rail by backing the need to rebalance the economy and deal with housing  affordability and pressures on local services caused by the growth imbalances of north and south.

Karen Lumley (Redditch) is now up on her feet backing the bill and putting in a plug for Hs2 training college to be based in her constituency. Government whips may yet repay Ms Lumley for her loyalty.

 

19.02

Ed Balls has surfaced via twitter with a curious message on HS2. But just what does he mean by this;

18.46

Lets step out of the chamber for a minute or two to see how the debate is going down in the homes, hamlets and twitter accounts of the supporters, opposers and neutrals of the scheme.

Outside Westminster there have been protests organised by high speed rail opponents

Its not a much of a turnout as HS2 supporters have been keen to point out.

There seem to be more people outside of the Commons chamber than there are inside debating the bill though

 

18.42

Michael Fabricant says that he is going to vote against his party for the first time in his parliamentary career. He says ” I hope for the benefit of the whips, it will be the last time.

18.37

Compensation for people in my area are worse in urban areas,” Dobson  says. Thatcher’s children he says that took advantage of right to buy will not get enough money from the compensation scheme to buy in the local area.

18.35

Frank Dobson Holborn & St Pancras MP

Frank Dobson Holborn & St Pancras MP

Frank Dobson is talking about the impact of HS2 in Camden. The accent of his comments are about the disruption that will caused during the 10 years duration of the works. He says that the passing trade that a lot of the businesses rely on would be cut off from a 10 foot wall that will separate them from the passing trade.

18.33

I should say that MPs have been limited to speak for only 5 minutes. Is it the case that the amount of time members have to discuss Government measures is in inverse proportion to how voluminous the bill is?

18.31

“Its capacity, capacity, capacity, as former Prime Minister said about another matter.” Simon Burns says rather jokingly in a reference to Tony Blair’s creed to prioritise education reform and investment. He’s backing HS2 and thinks that the capacity concerns on the West Coast Mainline need to be dealt with.

 

18.28

Louise Elman, Transport Select Committe chair is the second MP to speak up in support of HS2. Her select committe has looked at the progress of the bill on a  number of occassions . Its been a tough ride for the Government and KPMG at times but the select committee’s view has been overall backing for the scheme.

18.21

Gillan has finished speaking and the chair of the transport select commitee is now on her feet. Gilan concluded with mention of that MPA report again. The report, that the Information Commissioner is going to take the Government to High Court over, apparently has rated the risks of the scheme as “amber/red”. Gillan says that with high speed 2 being  a scheme “of such risk”  the MPA report should have been made availabkle to MPs in time for the debate.

18.06

Former Cabinet Minister and HS2 opponent, Cheryl Gilan

Former Cabinet Minister and HS2 opponent, Cheryl Gilan

Cheryl Gillan is moving the amendment its a cross party one. She says she wants to “break the cosy alliance between the Government and Labour”.  She says that she will not give way because she does not have time – which has put some members noses out of joints.  “HS2 will do veryt little, or absolutely nothing at all to deal with commuter capacity”  On benefits to the north she backs the IEA report that says there is no peer reviewed economic research that back the claim of improvements to growth. ” If that was the case Ebsfleet would be a boom town. HS2 will sap growth from the regions to London” she says. 

 

 

18.05

Creagh concludes that high speed rail is nothing new, the Great Western Line of Brunel’s was the first. HS2 will  “Rebalance the economy and connect our cities and make our railways fit for the 21st century.”

Creagh says Labour will hold the Government to account on the climate change reductions and environmental impact of high speeed rail. Along with the One Nation front behind Labour’s support for the bill it was the green corridor idea for extensive mitigation wildlife and ancient woodland that Creagh said should

18.00

Creagh backs the scheme becasue of carbon reduction benefits but she is challenged on this. Reductions will depend on whether HS2 can encourage people to make ‘modal shifts’ from more carbon producing vehicles and transport modes.

17.57

Bill Cash MP wants Mary Creagh to explain the benefits of Hs2 to his constituents in the midlands -she made a passing comment in her speech to the region  being specific beneficiaries. Mr Cash is a permanent member of the Government’s rebellious tendency and an opponent of the bill so he wont be impressed with Creagh’s answer.

17.52

We want a one nation economy to rebalance growth across the regions,”she says We ‘ve had the Olympics, and Cross rail that will transform travel in London. Its time for the rest of the UK to benefit, Creagh says.

 

17.49

” Four years of delay and mismanagement has caused costs to rise” Ms Creagh says. She is slamming the Government for their handling of HS2. Kate Hoey asks at what costs will the Labour Party withdraw from the scheme? Hoey is a Labour MP and an opponent of the bill. Ms Creagh again says that the costs will be looked at after it comes out of committee.

17.45

One of the risks of all party backing for a Government measure is that opposition spokespersons are treated with as much short shrift as paid Ministers. Mary Creagh is getting a lot of stick from opponents of the bill. Almost as if she were a part of the transport secretary’s team.

Barry Sherman from Huddlesfield points to the IEA report on High Speed 2 and says that as a previous supporter of HS2 he is now oppossed to the scheme because of the dubious business benefits to the north. He asks if she has seen the report. Ms Creagh in response backs the costs benefit case made by the  Governement.

17.42

Caroline Lucas asks whether there can be any mitigation for loss of ancient woodlands lost by HS2 – Mary Creagh spoke about the need for mitigation measures to deal with the impact of the rail  line. Quite a dig in her response. She says that as a Green MP Caroline Lucas’s position in not backing a scheme that would reduce the carbon footprint is odd.

17.36

Is Hs2 support by Labour contingent on it coming in under £50 billion Mary Creagh is asked? She’ll wait for the bill to come out of committee. Interesting.

17.34

Creagh is wrapping the HS2 scheme as part of the One Nation Labour project. She is asked pointedly what it was that got Labour to turn on the scheme. Higgins and extension to the north is the reason she cites for Labour’s confidence as well as the benefits to the environment.

17.33

Mary Creagh Shadow Transport Minister

Mary Creagh Shadow Transport Minister

Patrick McCloughlin ends and Mary Creagh replies. Already the mention of both benches in support has gotten a Tory opponent to their feet claiming that agreement between Government and opposition benches usually means that something is wrong. “Isn’t she a tinsy winsy bit worried about this?” he asks. I think he’ll regret this Ms Creagh is focusing on the tinsy winsy aspect of the question –  the kind of public school bot joke that delights the house.

17.30

A bit of a peroration here from McCloughlin. Hs2 has ” the power to change the nation profoundly and for the better.” He’s linking HS2 with the canals, railways and motorways that have  “left their lasting legacy.” He concludes ” I know the potential of Britain.”

17.27

The Major Projects Authority’s report that the transport minister vetoed the publication of and which is being challenged by the Information Commission is raised by a Conservative member. McCloughlin says that he was right to veto publication, Civil servants should be able to give candid advice to ministers.

 

17.25

Minister is very well briefed on the impacts of the scheme on local areas, some consolation to grass roots campaigners that the message has gotten across. Minister is though not going to be swayed and says that “We usually get a huge improvement for general infrastructure for the nation.”

 

17.21

Liam Byrne has come in too on this one. There is a big issue of planning blight in west Birmingham – its the old LDV site that we featured. McCloughlin says that the Government havce looked at the site carefully and are convinced of the scheme.

17.18

Says that if more mitigation measure can be taken the transport secretary says that he will take them. This has got Conservative members on their feet about what households will be covered by the compensation payments. There has been a lot in the media about how close houses and  businesses need to be to the track before eligibale for compensation. Transport Secretary says that he can’t be drawn on this as the plans are “still out to consultation.”

 

17.17

McCloughlin confirms that HS1 will not be a feature of the bill. He says that the environment impact statement is the most extensive ever carried. He also points to compliance wih European law. An interesting diversion from the secretary of state in his speech as we know that the High Speed 2 Alliance plan a judical review against the Government on this front.

17.13

A member asks  “What’s in it for Coventry?” A question on everybody lips? The Minister is well briefed and seems to suggest a level of connectivity with the area that it will be pointless to punish anyone by sending them there.

17.11

We’re on to Higgins report. McCloughlin on to the contingency budget and how tokeep it under control. he says “some people ask we why are you rushing it, and others ask why is it taking too long.” Hwe says that the Government are doing things properly.  We already know that he backs Higgins report and this evening he has re affirmed it.

17.09

Minister speech waylaid again, this time by Barnett consequentials. Who they? Another legacy from Joel Barnett, the irrepressible Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Denis Healy in the Callaghan Labour Government.

17.06

This has prompted Frank Dobson to come in –  mention of St Pancras and Kings Cross are both in his contituency and are the result of spending by the last Labour Government. Mr Dobson asks about the hidden costs of Crossrail 2 ans whether these are factored into HS2’s overall costs. Cant say I git the gist of the Transport Secretary’s answer and neither did Mr Dosbson I think.

17.01

Minister is talking the government’s book well on HS2 as part of overall tramsport investment. Crossrail and Kings  Crioss have created ‘real destinations, that people want to go to.’

16:59

Minister and former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw are in agreement on HS2 and the benefits it brings to the north. Mr Straw’s differences with the minister are focused on the overly generous compensation arrangements to the Chilterns as oppsed to urban areas. Mr Straw is the MP for Blackburn

16.55

Minister accepts a good point about how earlier oppostions to past infrastructyure schemes has resulted in support when they have been built.

 

16.54

McClouglin is answering a pointed question from a MP on the Tory benches none too friendly on rail capacity. The suggestion behind the question is that the capacity increases will benefit businessmen. The ministers demurs and says that relieving capacity via Hs2 will ease capacity on other lines.

16.52

Transport Secretary Patrick McCloughlin

Transport Secretary Patrick McCloughlin

McCloughlin is in his flow now detailing Government ambitions for transport and current spending. He says its wrong that you can go high speed from London to Lille but not to Birmingham.

German and China have been reeking the benefits of High speed rail , he says while the UK has not.

16.45

Sincere apologies the debate has started and we are behind the curve. Patrick McLoughlin has responded to a question from John Redwood on the cost benefits case. He’s hinting that the cost ratio is even less than that held by the Government if interests rates are added.  The Mionister says that if the cost benefit ratio was considered the Jubilee line would not have been built.

Frank Field from Birkenhead has come in on benefits of the scheme to north of a north south link compared to connectivity – you’ll hear that word a lot tonight – from west to east linking northern town. Mc Cloughlin is being very polite but every so gently put out that the questions being put to him are going to be covered in his speech, if only he could get along with it.

16. 35

Glenda Jackson the lone Camden Labour member who supports HS2

Glenda Jackson the lone Camden Labour member who supports HS2

We are asked earlier who are the rebels that will be voting against second reading of the bill but its interesting to note one  of the bill’s supporters,Glenda Jackson MP for Hampstead and Kilburn. Ms Jackson’s constituency makes up part of Labour run Camden council who have been vociferously opposed to the HS2.  Ms Jackson – a former transport minister in the last Labour Government is backing the scheme and will part company with Frank Dobson who will break the whip and vote against. Ms Jackson remained unrepentant about her decision to the Camden New Journal;

We are seeing the economic gap between the north and the south widening all the time. The great magnet of London ios drawing more people into it. The availability of affordable housing is off the scale. Pressure is being put on schools. We could see that money frittered away on smaller things but it would not have the same impact. That is why Iam suppporting it.

Gkenda Jackson wont be standing at the next general election which probably explains her far sightedness to see further than the boundaries of her London connstituency. She does originally hail from the Wirral.

16:13

We’re still waiting for the second reading tdebate to start after the statement on Ukraine, but here’s another tweet plucked from the twittersphere making a pointed dig at the economic case for high speed rail.

 

 15.43

While we digitally twiddle our thumbs lets see whats out there in the twittersphere on the bill.  Morbid forms indeed are the shape of politcial alliances in these austerity pressed times and to these must be added the Taxpayers Alliance and the Green Party. Their opposition to HS2 has bought about a common cause which has been on display outside Parliament.

 

 

 

14.40

We are hearing that the HS2 debate is running late. Its being pushed back for a statement on Ukraine and is expected to begin at 4.30pm

14. 12

Does Mr Lidington know something we don’t know on generous mitigation messures to come if the High Speed 2 bill gets through its second stage? Reading his comments in the Bucks Herald there is an interesting sentence that explains why as an opponent to HS2 he has decided to remain deep behind enemy lines rather than resign:

If I stood down I would just be one more MP that is against HS2, but by staying in I have the inside track, its a pragmatic political judgement.

Lidington believes that he is doing right by his constituents by staying in the government and having an inside track to influence fellow ministers.

Its desperately important that our area is at the table when ministers are taking decisions about environmental mitigation and compensation.

Is the Chilterns tunnel a done deal then?

 

13.47

As we speak a statement from David Lidington has just been released on his position on HS2. He will abstain tonight on the debate bur has has told The Bucks Herald local news that he will resign as a minister if a gerernous deal for resident affected by the line is not reached by the time the bill is next voted on.  Here a direct quote from the minister;

I have decided to abstain but I remain opposed to HS2. I’ve fought alongside campaigners and the Prime Minister knows my view. The key test for me, given that there is a massive cross-party majority in favour of the scheme, is can we get the generous and fair mitigation that the local area deserves?

I will resign at a later stage of the bill if they don’t get mitigation and that for me includes a Chiltern tunnel.

13.23

On that story of  sickies being administered for government ministers representing constituencies affected by HS2, David Lidington’s absence apparently raised the greatest laugh at the No 10 press briefing this afternoon. Mr Liddington found a good reason to be absent for the debate on the HS2 paving bill last November but has exceeded himself this time by being in Estonia on government business. His local news paper may not be impressd with his absence though. A  forthright comment by the editor of The Bucks Herald asks;

Mr Lidington has conveniently been out of the country and unable to take part in any votes so far. So on Monday will he do the right thing, turn up at the house and say No to HS2 as is the demand from many constituents?

 

13.05

It looks as if senior cabinet ministers whose constituencies are affected by HS2 have been given sick notes by No 10 not to attend the HS2 debate. Andrew Sparrow reports that a No 10 press spokesman did not rule out the claim ministers who oppose HS2 because of its affects on their constituencies will be able to absent themselves from the debate. On our reckoning this adds up to six ministers who willl be no shows – Attorney General Dominic Grieve, Cabinet Office  Minister Jeremy Wright, David Liddington Europe Minister,, Nick Hurd Civil Society minister,Andrea Leadsom economic secretary and David Guake also at the Treasury.

 

12.50

Who are the rebels and what do they hope to achieve? On the whole they are made up of those MPs whoise constituencies are most affected by the HS2 and where the UK Independence Party hopes to make considerable in roads. As a former cabinet minister Cheryl Gillan, former  is the most high profile rebel. She has been joined by the colourful and tweet obsesseed Michael Fabricant. Fabricant was recently sacked from his job as Tory vice chair for his oppostion to HS2 and his undisguised relief that former Culture Secretary Maria Miller resigned. Both Gillan and Fabricant have tabled motions which ask their fellow MPs to reject the bill.  Its pretty long and you can read it  here.

Fabricant’s motion has the support of Sir Edward Leigh, Jeremy Lefroy, David Davis, David Nuttal, William Cash,Caroline Spelman, Bob Blackman,Chris Kelly and Andrew Turner. Gillan’s motion has a more cross party flavour and I siuspect it has a strong basis for being called because of that.  Labour MPs including Frank Dobson, KateHoey, Kelvin Hopkins and Natascha Engel are signatories to the motion along with Caroline Lucas, the sole Green MP.  Conservatives supporters for the Gillan measure include Andrew Bridgen, Tim Loughton, David Nuttal, Philip Lee, Dan Byles, Chris Kelly, Christopher Chope, David Davis and Andrew Turner

 

12.31

Hello and welcome to HS2 and You’s live blog on the thrills and spills leading up to the second reading of the hybrid bill this afternoon.

Well its finally here! The second reading is set for  about 2.30pm. The Government whips are  confident that the bill will achieve its second reading, but the Telegraph reports that  around 40 rebels on the Conservative benches will vote against the bill. Labour support should ensure that the bill will go through to its  committee stage. There’s still a great deal to  report though as we head  up to the debate proper.

The morning news has been full with last minute advice to MPs who are yet to make up their minds on wheich way to vote – if a three line whip has not helped them to concentrate their minds. We’ll bring you a summary of these along with the news on HS2 over the weekend and a full round up what’s been happening on the hour.

For any MP who are undecided about which way to vote the weekend papers blogs and twitter streams have been surfeet with advice about which lobby to walk into. Here’s a bit of background reading for any MP’s who missed out.

First up Cheryl Gillan former Wales Secretary made a blistering attack on HS2 in Conservative Home. The MP for Chesham and Amersham resigned from the cabinet to spend more time opposing the scheme which will cut a large swathe through her constituency. Of note Ms Gillan has a go at the HS2 bydget and suggest that the real costs are  far greater

The budget currently stands at £50 billion at 2011 prices, but this is npot the complete picture. The budget does not reflect any interest payments which , since the taxpayer is funding it, should at least be acknowledged. To get some of the benefits the costs of building Crossrail 2 at an estimated £14 billion need to be considered too. Then there is the cost of connmecting HS2 stations to the existing infrastructure, and the cost of property blight which some estimate at around some £12 billion

We’ll leave you to do the maths on what the real HS2 costs will come in at.

The enigma that has been Labour’s postion on HS2 has ended with a categoric assertion by Mary Creagh shadow transport secretary that Labour would be voting with the Government on the second reading of the bill. It seems that wildlife mitigation swung it for Labour – there’s been intense activity from wildlife groups to preserve the anciient woodlands and scences of outstanding natural beauty as  reported here. But it was recognition that a party that espouses one nation values would find it very uncomfortable to be on the opposite side of a scheme that wants to rebalance the economy.  Here’s what Ms Creagh had to say in the Independent;

Labour is backing this new line which will cut congestion on the railways, better connect our major cities and help to deliver a one nation economic recovery. HS2 will improve connections between north and south and between northern cities

 

 

Comment: What HS2 tells us about the public, politicians and infrastructure.

 

With the high speed bill  completing its second reading a CBI report argues that securing public trust in major infrastructure projects in the future requires change to the way they are promoted, Patrick Edwards writes.

 

High sped train and Curzon Street, Birmingham

The CBI wants an infrastructure narrative to convince the public over the merits of major infrastructure project

 

News of David Moyes sacking  as the Manchester United boss was disappointing not just to the incumbent.

The Government had hoped that a rare joint appearance of the Prime Minister and Chancellor to promote the Coalition’s investment in major infrastructure schemes would  result in hard hat and high visibility front page pictures all round in next days papers.  It didn’t.

But as the intrigues of the Moyes sacking rumble on research from pollsters Ipsos MORI revealed that even if the Cameron and Osborne show had made the news the public would have remained resolutely sceptical about any claims made about the benefits of major infrastructure projects.

Infrastructure rarely feature as an important issue on the public’s mind but by delving deeper into public sentiment the survey, commissioned by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), found that the public are “broadly content” with the current quality of UK infrastructure.  ” On the one hand the public worry about the future, thinking that Britain has insufficient local affordable housing, that the transport network is struggling to cope, that job creation is important and that local communities need a boost. But on the other hand they are more likely to say they are currently more satisfied than dissatisfied with national and especially local infrastructure,” Ben Marshall of Ipsos MORI said.

The research also  found  that the public are more concerned by  the  short-term disruption to their local areas than the potential risk to  long-term  economic growth  by delaying major  infrastructure schemes. Warnings that  ‘the light will go out’ without infrastructure projects or  providing the ‘what if’ scenarios  loved by planner can be  expected to leave the public underwhelmed and unconvinced.

So far so obvious you may think. But interestingly the research provides an  insight into how future major infrastructure schemes can win greater public support.

Trust is a key issue in the reception  the public give to claims over the benefit of major infrastructure schemes.  A staggering 54 per cent of the public believe claims by technical experts  about the need for a  major infrastructure project compared to only  6 per cent who would trust a government minister.

The public also prefer  experts rather than politicians to make the decisions over what infrastructure projects the country needs.  The urgency for new infrastructure should never trump the democratic process though with 65 per cent of  the public being prepared  to delay the start of  infrastructure schemes until  all affected voices are heard.  Less than 15 per cent of the public trust businesses responsible for delivering  infrastructure projects to set out both the benefits and drawbacks of a national project in a local area.

The CBI seem to have got the message and are calling for a better way of “doing infrastructure.”  This, it says, will  be “less done deal and more proper dialogue with the public.”  They want the government to work much harder on spelling out an ” infrastructure narrative” that is able to convince communities at the grass-roots of the need for infrastructure improvements by ensuring clarity on the reasons behind infrastructure investment and presenting them effectively.

All of this is in contrast to the way High Speed 2 was presented to an unsuspecting public. Although the hybrid bill is expected to receive its second reading in the Common next week, many  of its supporters will admit that the scheme has not marked UK infrastructures finest hour.

A lack of consistent messaging about its need, a botched delivery of the cost benefits case and confusion over whether this was a scheme to increase  labour productivity or rail  capacity have all contributed to the dark clouds of doubt and cynicism on high speed rail in the public mind.

With the Government keen to get its infrastructure message across different and more convincing channels have to be found to ensure that delay in getting infrastructure projects off the ground are kept to a  minimum while public support is maximised.

In making encouraging noises to the way that both France and Australia tackle major infrastructure projects –  a  national plan is put together and delivered by independent expert agencies –  the CBI  is acknowledging that while  HS2 will win the day the approach to  future infrastructure projects  must never be the same.

 

 

 

Guest Post: Why HS2 is the wrong scheme.

Christian Wolmar picture

Christian Wolmar “HS2 is driven by a flawed methodology”

In a guest post  on the eve of the second reading of the bill Christian Wolmar tells us why MPs should  not be impressed with high speed 2

It often surprises people when they find out that I oppose HS2. I am obviously a great supporter of the railways and therefore it is assumed that I support the biggest railway investment project this country has ever seen.

But as I show in my London Review of Books article, the entire scheme is misguided.

HS2 fails to address Britain’s infrastructure needs, is based on a flawed methodology, and is being driven by a group of politicians with little understanding of transport and the role of the railway in a transport system. For example, HS2 has been mistakenly designed to be separate from the rest of the railway network – with a lack of connections, and a focus on parkway and terminus stations.

In London, Camden will suffer disproportionately. The borough will lose hundreds of homes and faces a decade of major and difficult construction. Moreover, more than 200 homes in Camden will be lost – and many owners will not receive sufficient compensation to re-buy locally. This risks pushing a generation of Londoners away from the city. A further 250 homes in the borough are at risk. This loss will also reduce the amount of private-rental accommodation available in the area.

My article also highlights the miserable fate of the businesses in and around Drummond Street, which has flourished as an enclave of restaurants and shops for more than a generation. They are very unlikely to survive the destructive development of HS2. Unfortunately, the misery is compounded by uncertainty.

The government recently scrapped a damaging and hugely-expensive link between HS1 and HS2, and is revisiting the plans for Euston station. Those who live and work in, and enjoy Camden, have many years of uncertainty ahead of them.

 

 

News: 10 golf courses on collision course with High Speed 2 route

Clubhouse, The Belfry

The Belfry, home to the Ryder Cup is one of 10 golf clubs affected by HS2

High Speed 2 will cut a swathe through 10 golf courses in its first phase of construction, but the wide-ranging powers that HS2 Ltd have to compulsorily purchase land is having a chilling effect of the affected clubs willingness to talk, Patrick Edwards finds out.

The US Masters is over for another year but for 10 golf clubs affected by the high speed 2 route golf may never be the same again. The lush  greens, fairways, bunkers and club houses under threat from the new rail line include The Belfry, home to the Ryder Cup, along with clubs at Aylesbury Vale, Uxbridge, Kenilworth, Darnford Moors, Marston Lakes, Buckinghamshire, Ruislip, Whittington Heath and Lichfield.

For many clubs the prospects of rail way evisceration has been hanging over them since 2010 when the route for high speed 2 was proposed and consulted on in the dying breath of the Labour government. For others though the threat of high speed rail has been more recent.  In Lichfield the original route for high speed rail avoided the 128 year old golf club and instead went through the medieval town. The revised plans will see the line split the golf course and places its Victorian club house directly in its path.

HS2 Ltd  will be given powers to both compulsorily purchase land and determine the price they will pay for it which has left many clubs feeling powerless. Clubs we have spoken with point to a period up to November 2013 – before  the hybrid bill was published detailing the route for HS2 and the land needed to be acquired – where HS2 Ltd were “very helpful”.  ” We were asking for certain things and there was an ongoing dialogue”, a club official who wanted to remain anonymous said. After the bill’s publication, though, the mood changed; ” They completely ignored 18 months of dialogue we had. They’ve effectively marked a line in the sand where they are sitting behind.”

An alternative to  negotiating directly with HS2 Ltd to  acquiring their land  would be for clubs to petition MPs directly to alter the route, but many view this as  a risky option that will garner little public sympathy. Another club official who wanted to remain anonymous said; “Golfers don’t draw the greatest sympathy in the world. We’re not likely to be forming a militia taking 6 irons to the gates of Downing Street.”

In statement HS2 Ltd said; “HS2 Ltd is in talks with a number of golf clubs along the route to understand the potential impact of the new railway on their business and what can be done to help. As well as potential financial compensation, we are looking at other forms of assistance to keep golf courses and other businesses open, including help to rearrange operations or find an entirely new location, depending on the circumstances.

“No two golf clubs are the same and each will be looked at individually in line with the rules of the compensation code.”

 

 

 

Inteview: Christian Wolmar on HS2 “I don’t think the people of the Chilterns have a strong case against it.”

 

christianwolmar

He thinks Camden has a better case against HS2 than the Chilterns, that Boris Johnson is car obsessed and that a London modelled on Copenhagen would be a bettter place to live. In an extended interview with the man who would be Mayor of London, Patrick Edwards speaks to Christian Wolmar

What’s at the heart of your campaign to be the next Mayor for London?

Well the big vision is that cities have to change for the 21st century. There’s been recognition of this in New York, Paris, Rome and recently Hamburg have set to meet that vision which has at the centre of it less reliance on the car. I share that vision and my aim is to make the centre of London a much more liveable, pleasant place.That in great part can be achieved by placing less emphasis on the car and opening up streets to pedestrians and cyclists making it a much more liveable city.

“I would do this by some emblematic schemes. My favourite idea is to pedestrianise Oxford Street, once Crossrail arrives it’s an absolute no brainer. I’d give the north bound lane of Park Lane back to  Hyde Park from which it was filched 50 years ago. Through these and more emblematic schemes you would create a different city. Ken (Livingstone) started this with the congestion charge which I thought that was a great coup. But he lost his way because he didn’t actually think through what the implications were for a city like London. Of course there are lot of policies asides from transport to introduce but I think you need a central strategy that is aimed at getting to the same place that Copenhagen is moving to over  twenty to thirty years, to open up the city in a different way and create a much better environment.

A place for people rather than cars, does that mean increased taxes for car users and an increase or expansion of the congestion charge?

I start with the ideas of  cutting off some spaces from cars, and not just the couple I mentioned. There are a few others. You set yourself a target for reducing car use in central London, and yes that might involve a higher congestion charge but maybe a more sophisticated approach,  one that doesn’t allow cameras at entry points but can be tailored to time of day. This kind of technology is widely available. But by setting ourself a target and saying “look out aim is actually to have fewer cars in the central area,” other policies will flow from that. So you might have parking policies, planning policies in relation into new developments and public transport policies to improve access, all of which would flow from the central vision.

Every Mayoral candidate will say they want to make the city more amenable to people. Boris Johnson, the current Mayor, has developed the most fantastic brand of being a cyclist to cement that message. Hasn’t he been doing this?

I think that the vision has been very muddled. Simon Jenkins wrote a brilliant piece in the Evening Standard saying there are contradictory policies here. Boris wants more cyclists but he doesn’t want traffic flow to be limited. He doesn’t want to take space away from cars. And you can’t get away with this contradiction. You need a long term idea of what sort of city you want in 20 years time. Ken commissioned a report from the famous Copenhagen architect and planner Jan Gehl called Towards a Fine City for People and then said we are going to implement it. But somehow he didn’t implement it. Jan Gehl came to London a couple of weeks ago to present a film that he featured in and he attracted an audience of 1200 people at the Hackney Empire.

“There is a real thirst and recognition that we need a different sort of city, a gentler and healthier one. The reason for it is not environmental, its economics and health. It would, be good for business to have better spaces, and a lot more better spaces in the centre of London, other wise a lot of people are going to shop at Westfields and Bluewater.

A thirst amongst who though? Jan Gehl’s name is not tripping off the lips of every Londoner. Isn’t this thirst more amongst the commentariat, opinion formers and the glitterati?

No. Look I think you can argue very strongly that this is not some fanciful idea of transport but that its linked to the economy and the good health of people. One of the things that has come up strongly at meetings that I have been to is clean air. People actually care about the fact that air is very polluted in central London and its smog is not spoken about because Boris Johnson is trying to hide the fact. Clean air is a very important issue. The economy is very important.

“Successful cities are not those where you have traffic whizzing off through it at 30 miles an hour. Look what’s happening in Shoreditch where an area which was really just a great big roundabout has turned into a much more pleasant part of the city due to the fact that they got rid of the gyratory and its fantastic. It’s not just the restaurants and the bars that have benefited but business too. Shoreditch is now the hub of the technological revolution that is Tech City, although they’ll have to think of another name to describe it as Silicon Roundabout is now pretty redundant. So it’s not just about the environment.

So there are signs of life within Transport for London (TfL) on this score, but why isn’t this thinking blossoming across London? Is the Mayor to blame?

I think the mayor has this contradiction. Yes he likes cycling and I think he is genuine, but the cycle Super Highway he devised is absolutely in contradiction with the idea of encouraging cyclists because of the compromises that they were forced into. They were not allowed to reduce or slow the traffic flow and weren’t then able to give sufficient space to cyclists.  We’ve had the tragedies on the super highway out at Mile End as a result. I think that they are learning that now. Andrew Gilligan has done a good job in sorting out the cycling visions but it needs a mayor who is really committed to the idea, as much as Gilligan himself is, to push it through as Boris remains stuck fast in this contradiction

What do you think of Boris Johnson, would you have a drink with him?

I think he’s actually a very clever politician. He’s a politician through and through but ultimately I think his instincts are all wrong. They are all right wing and they favour the more affluent people against poorer people. There is something of an agenda for clearing poorer people out of central London and leaving it for the middle class and more importantly the rich. It’s difficult to not think that when he calls in big planning schemes and reduces the amount of even affordable housing, let alone social housing. There is at the core to him a very nasty right wing agenda that risk changing the face of the city.

You are a very cerebral and thoughtful candidate, do you not worry that the London Mayoral elections seem to appeal more to the maverick candidate and that your cerebral, cool and reasoned approach will be easily overlooked?

I think that Londoners would actually welcome somebody who has some ideas that are worked through. The reason I threw my hat into the ring was precisely because I thought that the previous contest was so narrow. It was all about Ken’s tax affairs and Boris’s character and bendy busses for Christ sake! I think that there are wider concerns. I found that in the speeches that I have given to various Labour Party meetings there is a real thirst for this new thinking, which incidentally also includes the suburbs as well, to make them more liveable. There is a real desire for change and this is part of a world-wide zeitgeist that cities are changing. They have to be  different – they are going to get bigger and more crowded as populations become increasingly more centred there and they can no longer be based on cars. Even China is discovering that.

Back to the Cycle Super Higher and the contradictions of Mayor Johnson’s strategy, do you then hold the Mayor responsible for the  tragedies of cycle deaths on London roads?

I don’t think you can link them directly on him, but I think you can blame the overall strategy on him which led to these accidents. I think the cycle super highways should have been designed with the cyclist really at the centre of them rather than  pretending they were.  I’ve cycled down them.The  one at Embankment is ok, there’s plenty of space. But the one at Mile End to Stratford is actually dangerous. I think TfL has changed and they recognise the failings.

“I don’t want to lay the deaths directly at Mayor Johnson that would be unfair, but I think that the philosophy that the cycle super highways were built was his responsibility.

It may not be fair but the Mayor has not been slow to blame the deaths on the cyclists themselves. That doesn’t seem particularly fair?

I think that was daft. Privately Tfl people have said that lots of these people were wearing head phones and not wearing helmets. And of course some of these accidents may be in part due to cyclists fault, but its failing to create a culture where the most vulnerable road uses are those that are most protected that has led to these accidents. That’s the problems – there’s the wrong culture out there. There is still ample encouragement for cars to go at thirty miles an hour. The wrong culture.

You have been a commentator and an observer on transport since Independent and written some fantastic books abut transport, in your experience does anything compare to the kind of reception that HS2 has got from the public?

Heathrow Third Runway bares comparison.

“Certainly there been a lot of hostility towards HS2 although oddly enough the hostility has been in the wrong place. I don’ t think the people of the Chilterns have that strong a case against it because I don’t think it will do much damage, while the people of Camden have a very strong case against it and a really good case to try to amend or scrap the scheme.It’s doing nothing for the people of Camden. It’s destroying 600 of their homes, and ploughing a furrow through a chunk of the borough.

“Instinctively I want to support HS2 because I love the railways. They are the best form of transport and I make my living from writing about how wonderful they are. But HS2 is a very misconceived scheme. I think if it had been designed in a different way I would have bought it. Its separate from the rest of the railway and it will absorb a lot of money out of the railway that will only serve the interest of a relatively narrow sort of people, those travelling between London, to the detriment of the other towns.

“What was needed was a much more interconnected system that they have in Germany ( Deutsche Bahn) where you might have bit of High Speed rail and bits of improved conventional rail but where everything is better interconnected. HS2 is a very odd scheme in that there are two stations in London, two in Birmingham, one in the middle of nowhere between Nottingham and Derby and one in the middle of nowhere in Sheffield and two terminus station in Leeds and Manchester. There are no links or through connections and it’s also designed to travel  at 400 km/h. Why do we need this in a very small country? The need for speed has limited the design of it. Overall it’s ill thought out.

 

Why Bradford says No to HS2

dgreen

Investment in east west links and the long awaited electrification of the Caldervale Line are the priorities for delivering growth in the region, not HS2. Cllr Dave Green  also tells Patrick Edwards why he is not best pleased with Communities Secretary Eric Pickles.

Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary visited Bradford recently and effectively said that you didn’t know what you were talking about  in rejecting High Speed 2.

He didn’t say it to my face. When I met him High Speed 2 was not discussed. My position on High Speed 2 remains sceptical but I’m waiting to be convinced. The reason for the scepticism is that whilst it may relieve some of the congestion on the east coast main line, the links between the HS2 station in Leeds and the regional and sub regional rail network are non-existent and it would be a totally separate station. Secondly, the promised investment in the regional infrastructure has yet to be confirmed yet alone happen, particularly the electrification of the Caldervale line from Leeds to Manchester. Thirdly on the release of space on the east coast main line there has yet to be any announcement that actually that will be used to improve north south links from Bradford and other towns and cities in the west Yorkshire area. HS2 can say it will release capacity on the line but they aren’t the people who run the services on the east coast main line so as yet we have had no indication that there will be improvements in those links to and from Bradford.

So in your view it’s not right to think that a High Speed Line on its own is able to deal with these issues?

What we’ve got at the moment is a one club approach and until we see evidence of a real commitment to the other infrastructure that’s needed to support the economies across the north of England, but west Yorkshire in particular, we are going to remain sceptical about the benefits of HS2 to Bradford.

What are the other clubs that should be in the transport secretary’s locker?

We want to see a real commitment from the Government, not just in words but in starting the work on the regional rail network. We need to know how they intend to exploit any additional capacity on the east coast main line. We need a clear indication from the Government on all of these because even if HS2 starts tomorrow it’s not going to be completed for decades and we need the investment in the infrastructure in the region now. We are making great advances in the local economy both in Bradford and across west Yorkshire but investment is being held back by infrastructure problems

This was a consultation about HS2 and the Transport Secretary is entitled to say that you are talking about a broader area of economic development. Isn’t this holding HS2 to ransom for what are small and seemingly irrelevant demands?

They have been identified and accepted by successive governments as vital to the economic development of the area. I’m not holding HS2 to ransom.  What I’m saying is that if all that is available to investment in rail infrastructure to support economic development in the north of England is the money available to HS2 there needs to be a debate about whether that will actually bring the greatest economic benefit to the region?

Has Bradford MDC made any calculations on the cost of that additional investment to the region?

Bids have gone into government for schemes like the electrification of the Caldervale line [£430.8m] This is not just for Bradford. Leeds, Calderdale Manchester and Lancashire authorities are making the same demand if you want to put it like that. We all recognise the inter-linked nature of our communities and economies. We’re also considering and are working up schemes that would potentially open up some of the east coast rail facilities to improve both regional and national links. We are talking in the tens of millions to get that done at the moment but we haven’t finalised those figures.

Summarising  your perspective the priorities for Bradford and the surrounding areas is for more infrastructure spend on the rail infrastructure network for the metropolis rather than these point to point lines like north to south that that you are dubious will have any benefit?

It’s the east west and north south links that are important to Bradford. Bradford is the 4th biggest metropolitan city authority in the country and we are talking about links to the second and third largest metropolitan distracts in the country. We’ve got an economy that is worth £8.5 billion a year. This idea that Bradford’s position is some small irrelevance is wrong. What we are saying is that we don’t believe that there is a beneficial trickledown effect from HS2 and that without the other investment to link any HS2 development with the wider region and economy the economic benefits are dubious.

What are you going to do now we know that the government is set for a ‘re-launch’ of HS2? David Higgins is absolutely convinced that this is the best thing for the north so what is Bradford’s position going to be?

 We are going to continue to lobby for the additional infrastructure investment that, if HS2 goes ahead, makes sure that the promised benefits are delivered. Bradford formally does not have a position for or against HS2.  What we do have is a concern and scepticism about the benefits that people tell us will accrue to the district. I will be going to meetings with HS2 to raise our concerns. I have to say that it isn’t just the councils concerns. There are many businesses in Bradford whose views I’m reflecting as well.

Have you met with local businesses before responding to the consultation?

We did and the level of scepticisms in the business community are reflected in the views that I’m expressing.

What about your fellow local councils in the north, there are some who are incredibly supportive of HS2?

And there are some who are incredibly opposed to it. I think it depends on their view of any potential economic benefits down the track. Wakefield now have a formal position of opposing HS2. Bradford’s position is that we are incredibly sceptical of the alleged benefits that will come to the district. If somebody can a demonstrate that there’s other infrastructure investment coming in that is linked to HS2 or convince me and other members of the council and the business community that the promised economic benefits are real then our scepticism may be assuaged.

What is it that you need to see to assuage it?  Is it money on the table to deal with the transport infrastructure requirements that you’ve spoken about? Is it more evidence in the Government’s business caser that HS2 a winner for your part of the country?

Both to be brutally honest. We need to be convinced that those linkages between HS2 and the rest of the region are going to be real and easy for business travel and for tourism. Clearly HS2 is aimed at the business traveller but I think if it’s a success it will also attract tourism. But regardless of whether HS2 happens or not this region desperately needs the sort of infrastructure investment that I’ve referred to and we are going to keep fighting for that.

How do you see the economic development challenges in the north and why  is HS2 simply not the only club that should be used to meet that challenge?

I can speak mainly for Bradford.  We’ve got some real challenges in terms of youth unemployment which is significantly above the national average. We’ve got one of the fastest growing populations outside of London. We’ve got the youngest population and therefore what we desperatelty need is jobs. We’re doing our bit by improving education and skills and attracting investment but the infrastructure issues do remain something real. We’re working across west Yorkshire and the Leeds city region to form a combined authority because not all the jobs that we are going to get are going to be in Bradford  but in Halifax, Leeds and Wakefield which is why infrastructure is a major consideration.  We need to get the work force to where the jobs are.

So a north south fast line is not a priority?

East west and north south are a priority. Wakefield is most probably 10 miles away from Bradford. You can’t get there by train unless you change at Leeds. What we need to do is comparatively simple to create those links that go directly from Bradford to Wakefield, to Sheffield and that would also potentially open the link further south to London.

So HS2 on its own is not up to muster without that additional transport  infrastructure being in place?

That is our real concern,

You met Patrick McLoughlin and I’m interested to know, if you didn’t talk about HS2, what you did talk about?

I spoke to him about the need for the government to resolve the problem that’s actually delaying the implementation of the integrated transport fund in west Yorkshire. We are setting up a combined authority of the 5 west Yorkshire authorities and York City Council to deal with some of the major strategic issues that we all face, including transport. As part of the City Deal with Government we planned to establish an integrated transport fund to help fund some of those links between the major towns and cities in west Yorkshire. We were all going along fine and then the Government have moved the goal post which has seriously called into questions our ability to raise the billions pounds over the next 20 years that we projected by potentially including the transport levy in the capping figure for local councils that hadn’t been the case before.

So you’re not a fan of Eric Pickles the Communities Secretary?

My client refuses to comment on the grounds that I might incriminate myself. He’s an ex leader of Bradford council.

It’s the cap on community charges imposed by the government that has screwed your prospects here?

We’ll wait for the government to sort out the rules.

The Labour party still seems to be making up its mind about HS2. Speaking from your personal political perspective what will you be doing, if anything, within the party about its position on HS2?

I will be taking part in the internal party debates both on HS2 about how we are going to invest in infrastructure projects, and transport infrastructure in particular and the role that local authorities should and must play in that.

Could you be a bit specific about what you will be pushing for in Labour party circles as far as HS2 is concerned?

If HS2 is to go ahead we need to make sure that its benefits are such that they spread across as wide an area as possible and to do that we need to have those linkages and infrastructure investment across the piece.

With respect I know that Ed Balls has made it clear is that he’s worried that HS2 has to deliver for the tax payer and it might cost too much. It seems to me from what you are saying that you would make that project more expensive and that’s not something that Ed Balls is going to be very interested in?

I think it’s going to be a cost benefits analysis. If HS2 goes through clearly the wider that we can spread the benefits the better and the better pay back you will get. In some way it can be seen as an  ‘invest to save’ project. What we have suffered from over many years is a piecemeal approach to transport projects rather than looking at the regional picture and linkages that need to be made to make sure that we get the best economic outcomes?

So what you have been saying is not the positions of Bradford Council?

Bradford council has not formally taken a vote on our views on HS2. I am aware that the views that I’m expressing are shared by people of different political parties across the council.  If we went today with a position that was sceptical to the full council that position would get through.

And are you going to do that?

At the moment I don’t have any plans to because I’m busy making massive cuts to the council’s budget. Before we make any final decision on our attitude to it what we need to do is be very clear about exactly what the schemes are on the table.

Your position is a wily one. You’ve got out there and told the Transport Secretary about the shortcoming of High Speed rail but you don’t want a rigid position on it because you want to give him some wriggle room to come back to you and give you want you want. That’s why you’re not going back to council isn’t it?

I think that there will be some people that would argue that that gives me a greater intelligence than they perhaps believe I have. The position is that whatever comes out at the end we need to be sure that it is best for the people and the economy of Bradford. If what comes out from the Government in the end meets that then we will consider a formal position then.

And what would meet that is greater investment in transport infrastructure  east  and west?

Yes.  That sort of issue.

And after you’ve gone through your budget and made those cuts you won’t be rushing to the council chamber to get a resolution passed on HS2, will you?

We have to be very clear what the offer is and until such a time when we know what the government’s policy and intentions are we’ll take a position on it then.

Christian Wolmar interview on HS2

Christian Woolmar speaks to HS2 and You on High Speed 2

In the first of a two part interview Christian Wolmar, former Independent  transport correspondent,writer, broadaster and Mayor of London hopeful, gives his assessment of High Speed2, why the Chilterns have nothing to moan about and media coverage of fhe controversial scheme.

 

 

You’ve been an expert commentator and  observer on transport since being  The Independent’s transport correspondent so in your experience does anything compare to the kind of reception that HS2 has got from the public?

Certainly there been a lot of hostility towards HS2 although oddly enough the hostility has been in the wrong place. I don’ t think the people of the Chilterns have that strong a case against it because I don’t think it will do much damage, while the people  of Camden have a very strong  case to try to amend or scrap the scheme. It’s destroying 600 of their homes, and ploughing a furrow through a chunk of the borough.

Instinctively I want to support HS2 because I love the railways. They are the best form of transport and I make my living from writing about how wonderful they are. But HS2 is a very misconceived scheme. I think if it had been designed in a different way I would have bought it. Its separate from and it will absorb a lot of money out of the railway and will only serve the interest of a relatively narrow sort of people, those travelling between London, to the detriment of the other towns. It’s a very odd scheme in that there are two stations in London, two in Birmingham, one  in the middle of nowhere between Nottingham and Derby  and one in the middle of  nowhere  in Sheffield and two  terminus station in Leeds and Manchester. There are no links or through connections and it’s also designed to travel at 400 km/h.  Why do we need this in a very small country? The need for speed has limited the design of it. Overall it’s ill thought out.

How could a scheme so ill thought out have got so far and with such a high price tag?

It’s been done in a rush. Andrew Adonis, someone I admire greatly, wanted to see it through quickly so commissioned a report that was constrained by various factors such as it had to go to Old Oak Common.  The question was never asked “how would we best improve Britain’s railway system?” the question instead was “where should we put a High Speed line?”

But I thought that Westminster and Whitehall were very good at spotting major projects that did not add up or more about preening political vanity. Why has the mechanism to challenge the credibility of the scheme broken down?

You have ask ‘what is it that is really  driving this?’ It’s very strange that a Tory party that is often been hostile to public support  for  the railways has got so into this scheme and that it has got all party support without really being tested . Nobody has asked questions about it.  I spoke with Mary Creagh  (Labour Shadow Transport Secretary) about this and asked her whether she was going to actually scrutinise the scheme in a way that will ask basic questions, rather than  just rubber stamping it. That’s what the Labour Party should be doing – Why is this a scheme with two stations in London, two in Birmingham?  Why are all the stations either parkway stations or terminus stations with no actual through stations on the whole scheme that serve major conurbations?

Why doesn’t the UK need trains travelling at 400kmph?

Britain is a very small country and the time savings are not worth the environmental degradation either in the design of the line or the huge resources to speed those trains along the line. As you increase the speed of trains you increase their fuel consumption by the square of the difference in the increase of speed so you will use an awful lot of resources.

How have the German’s approached the relation between their high speed rail system and existing rail networks?

With the Deutsche Bahn the design of their High Speed network is very different partly because German’s don’t have one big central city like we do, but it has several major cities.  But also their high speed trains go on and off the existing network onto dedicated lines and then then back on to existing networks.  They have built bits of high speed lines in particular places. So they have mixed and matched rather than created a separate network.

Bradford MDC is one of a number of local councils that  doesn’t see a north/south connection as being important. Investment particularly in east /west connections  is more important, . Do you see much scope in local councils being put in the driving seat as far as transport investment is concerned?

I’m all in favour of giving more powers to Northern councils trying to come together to be the franchise authority. But they can only do that if they have got the resources to do it and if they don’t lose money from central Government. As a general point if you devolve transport responsibilities to local authorities they do want to spend the money on transport improvements. It is a popular form of spending. You only have to look at London and its transport budget.  Scotland has devolved responsibility and Wales and they have all spent a lot of money on transport.

Bradford and other Met authorities do have powers and responsibility for transport and this includes pricing. Apparently the cap that limits council tax increases has been expanded to include fares and now Bradford cannot get the money they need in area for investment.

That is quite wrong. The localism agenda is completely dishonest. It is such a joke. It’s all about destroying local government and one way of doing it is by screwing them financially.

Sir David Higgins, you described as the only man who could pull HS2 out of the fire, says that he is going to reduce the cost of HS2 and bring it in on time. What are his chances?

It’s far too early to say.  It’s going to be a complicated political process and I think until he comes out the other end of it we can’t say anything really.  There’s a big delay already due to the incompetence of the Government who didn’t put all the necessary papers into the bill. This means the political process starts a month later than planned in April. This bill is 48,000 pages long and is going to be a nightmare process as well as a  very lengthy one.

On making cost saving David Higgins said that you could start the work on the line from both (north and south) ends at the same time?

I was very surprised that he said this to the Transport Select Committee because the northern bill is not even yet in Parliament; they’re still at the consultation stage. That could only be archived by merging the two bills but you can’t do that now. Apparently Parliament can’t take the weight of two bills at the same time. So I don’t know how he could say he could do that.

You once wrote that the chances of HS2 going ahead was as sure a bet as Andy Murray winning Wimbledon. I suppose HS2 is unstoppable now?

I wrote that in the Evening Standard. I went on to say in the piece that there are now doubts about it. I still think its 60:40 that it will be built. If  all 3 major parties remain sold on it  –  and Mary Creagh seems to be behind it, and with the Labour Councils behind it  – not all of them  – but those key ones like Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds are all in favour,  you’ve got to bet on the fact that it will get built. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be exactly the same as the existing scheme. There could be amendments to it. As a betting man I would say yes it probably is going to get built and when it gets built I will support it the best way I can.  I can  point out the inadequacies but I can also hope it will be a marvellous railway.  It should be for £48 billion!

What would the Victorian railway pioneers that you have written about make of High Speed 2?

They would say “Oh God this is all too complicated.” It’s the wrong sort of railway, I’m sure they would pick up on the point.  Let me put it this way; High Speed 2 is a designed like a motorway rather than a dual Carriage way and I think we need a dual carriageway. There is this obsession that everything has to be fast and the most expensive, is the best, but actually we need a healthy dual carriageway that links in with all the towns across Britain rather than being a motorway with very few exits and entrances. There are only 4 connections with the rest of the rail network. It’s just the wrong scheme.

On the critics of HS2 you said that Camden had a good case but the Chilterns didn’t.  Which other areas have got a good case to beef about HS2?

I think the thing that where the Chilterns do have a good case is to ask why there isn’t a station somewhere in the middle between London and Birmingham. The reason why is because of the methodology behind the way that HS2 was drawn up. Any travel delays would clearly reduce the cost benefit ratio for the scheme as there would have been if there was a stop at Milton Keynes. There are ways of improving this that might perhaps come through the Parliamentary process.

There are very few transport correspondents on the ground these days , how well have the press performed in scrutinising HS2 in their absence?

I think not very well. They have been far too much focused towards the Chilterns for example and not towards an awful lot of other issues. Issues like whether its eating up money from the railways generally to Camden which has been much less covered than it should have been. There’s also been no investigation of the alternatives. I think the coverage has been very flat  and very one dimensional.

What do you think are the stories that should be being dug into HS2 ?

Certainly Camden. If you go through that Bill line by line you will find all sorts of bizarre things. They plan to build a cycle way next to HS2 which I think is a rather interesting idea. They are doing a feasibility study of that, so there might be some potentially stories. The other thing to look at is how has Lille really done? Its always given as the example of HS2’s benefits.  I think the benefits to Lille have been very narrow around the station but have not enormously improved the economy of Lille and other cities linked by the TGV. Has it really delivered the impacts that were promised?  Professor John Tomaney at UCL has done a lot of work on this.

Do you think that connections between consultants and HS2 may also be something to pursue?  Presumably there is a huge consultancy budget for all of this and secondment from the very infrastructure firms they have hired to do the work?

There’s undoubtedly a story there. Most of the pro HS2 lobby are definitely self interested. Jim Steer genuinely believes in this but will also profit enormously from this. Jim leads Greengauge 21 . There are very few neutral people in the stories. Some of the big consultancy firms and the like are big boosters and beneficiaries of the scheme. There are a couple of thousand people working for this and a lot of them are consultants. Its how the scheme was built.

HS2: who has the Government’s case convinced?

How was the Government’s revised business case for HS2 been received?  We’ve taken a snap shot of responses from a range of commentators.

Stephen Joseph of the Campaign for Better Transport said;

“We strongly support the case for more rail capacity and want to see that provided. HS2 could be the best way to do this but the Government is constrained by the traditional ways of presenting the business case for transport projects. This can’t be reduced to a single benefit cost ratio. People need to be able to see the full impacts that HS2 will have, including the rail stations and the links to them, and the way HS2 fits into the wider transport network.”

But Hilary Wharf of HS2AA begs to differ and finds the business case unconvincing;

“It is disgraceful that Government resort to voodoo economics and fantasising about a world where high speed rail brings countless benefits in a last ditch attempt to make their case for HS2.  It plays more to an MP audience who make over 40% of their travel by train, rather than the taxpaying public who only use rail for 6% of their travel – and fewer than 2% of rail journeys nationally are made on the WCML.” 

Interesting HS2AA’s analysis claims that the benefits cost ratio claimed by the Government is ‘still exaggerated’ and they put it at under 0.5 less than 50p back for every £1 subsidy spent. The analysis though is tortuous and we will be looking at their claims in a bit more detail in an update.

Michael Roberts, Director General of the Rail Delivery Group that represents train operating companies, said:

“There are a million more services and half a billion more passengers on the railway this year than there were a decade ago. By 2020, a further 400 million journeys will be made annually. There is a capacity challenge not just on the West Coast Main Line, but on the railway more generally. That is why we must plan for a network which can move more people and freight across the country safely, reliably and efficiently.”