The HS2 project and high-speed rail development in Britain

¶ … High Speed Rail

With greater economic and population growth, there is crowding issues on existing rail lines, poor journey times, areas that have been neglected with existing rail ways, and a greater carbon issue. In efforts to reduce the CO2 emissions, the government has encouraged less car usage, less air travel usage, and more train travel. In these efforts a new high speed rail line has been proposed.

The proposed High Speed Two project is intended to reduce CO2 emissions and provide measures to accommodate future growth in the train travel industry. By reducing road usage and air usage, the train travel produces less CO2 emissions to further harm the environment. The HS2 project is designed to operate with existing lines to produce greater capacity and efficiency in services to new and local users.

The HS2 (London-West Midlands) project case alone will provide 13 billion more in benefits than the cost in benefits to users and wider economic benefits. With the new high speed rail, passengers can enjoy reduced crowding with greater end to end journey times and reach destinations in a timelier manner. The reduction in carbon emissions from train travel will enable the government to meet goals concerning a low carbon future.

Chapter 1: Introduction

There has been a growing trend in rail way use over the last decade. It is forecasted by 2026 that train travel will increase three to four times what it is at present (Anon., 2010). Passenger numbers have increased 50% and freight numbers have increased 40% (Anon., 2009). This has caused an overcrowding problem on existing trains and railways where some passengers may not reach their destinations in a timely manner. The growth in travel has stemmed from economic and population growth. Transportation has been making major contributions to the CO2 emissions problem with a 24% of the total in 2007 (Anon., 2010). The government has encouraged less car usage and a clear desire to transfer air travel and long distance travel to train services.

Chapter 2: Hypothesis

A growing trend of passengers in the last decade demonstrates our need for a high speed rail. By having a new high speed rail, we will have less traffic and air pollution and less environmental impacts due to its fuel along the London and West Midlands. Plus passengers would reach their destination in much less time.

Chapter 3: Summary of Articles

Some studies are opposed to a new high speed rail because of the high costs that taxpayers would have to pay and feel there are more sufficient measures of reducing waste in business process. Others feel there are higher benefits than actual costs when all measures are compared. The financial analysis shows higher benefits than costs with some benefits that cannot be measured.

Chapter 4: Arguments in Favor

The High Speed Two project permits restructuring and extensions of existing services (Anon., 2011). One of the benefits of HS2 is the effective reuse of capacity. It would allow new and local passengers and new freight trains to operate as well as all services to operate without constraints. HS2 would allow for expansion of services on existing and future rail without higher frequencies and connections to places previously neglected. Services that have been lost can be regained with HS2. Revision of existing timetables would allow for expansion with a reduction of road usage and carbon emission.

The West Coast Main Line, between London and West Midlands, could reach its capacity by mid-2020s, even after upgrade (Anon., 2009). Increasing the non-carbon energy generation will increase energy efficiency with a new high speed rail line. A new high speed rail would provide increased capacity to relieve overcrowding through longer trains and provide faster, more efficient, services. The HS2 has the capacity to deliver valuable economic, environmental, and social benefits by providing additional capacity, reducing overcrowding and predictable end to end journey times, support for housing and population growth, and improving links to key international gateways.

Chapter 5: Arguments Opposed

The challenge in making substantial improvements is to increase ease and convenience without adding infracture cost and increase in the CO2 emissions problem. "There is a need to prioritize provision of greater capacity and to ensure that solutions are ranked in order of cost effective means" (Anon., 2011). Although, there is a need to do away with waste in business processes and provide greater capacity utilization. Timetables need to be reviewed for increase in frequency. Infractures can be done to provide longer trains to help reduce the overcrowding.

These changes alone will not be sufficient for future forecasted growth. Train lengthening on existing lines only shows 20% more seats, which is not enough to meet the forecasted growth and will lead to significantly increased overcrowding (Anon., 2011). There is also the issue of CO2 emissions. These changes do not sufficiently reduce the impacts to the environment concerning CO2 emission.

Conclusion

A new high speed rail line will support the future growth expectations with increased lines for efficient routes to neglected areas, longer trains for capacity to reduce overcrowding, accommodate passengers and freight switching from road and air travel, and reduce carbon effects on the climate at the same time. Passengers will have better journey times, reaching destinations in a more timely manner. The new high speed rail will support the government's desire to reduce air and road usage to further the goals of a low carbon future. The high speed rail also enables greater benefits in the long run than from just revising the existing lines, providing longer trains, and revision of timetables for frequency to support future predicted growth from economic, population, and growth from passengers switching from road and air travel. It would help to support the future growth of travel in a more efficient manner without the constant infracture measures that can cost more in the long run with increased prices in material and labor efforts.