Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
HS2 proposal is a government project to build a one hundred mile long High Speed Rail (HSR) line between London and Birmingham, England that, once completed, will have the capacity of carrying 28 trains per hour. These trains will be capable of 220 -- 250-mile per hour. It is projected by some experts that this line will reduce journey times from London to other cities by up to 30 minutes. Government reports that there is the potential of reduced emissions, job creation, and economic development(s) as a result of the construction of this line. There are quite a few individuals and groups that disagree with the government's projections, and many argue against the line due to the project's 25 billion pound cost. Others argue that it is not only the cost, but the added carbon emissions, low usage, and elitism associated with the construction and continued ridership issues.
This paper will look at seven reports regarding the HS2 development, the pros and the cons of construction, and the viewpoints being put forth by the various groups. The seven reports include; 1) Wendover HS2 -- Action Against Chiltern HS2 Routes, 2) HS2 -- Demand for long distance service -- April 2011, 3) HS2 -- Valuing the Benefits of HS2 (London -- West Midlands) -- April 2011, 4) Greengauge 21, Capturing the Benefits of HS2 on Existing Lines, 5) Britain's Transport Infrastructure High Speed Two -- January 2009, 6) Bluespace Thinking Ltd. -- A Review of High Speed Rail -- HS2 Proposals, and 7) A Better Railway for Britain -- www.betterthanhs2.org.
These seven reports display the thinking of a number of different viewpoints and perceptions from each side of the issue. Some are for the construction, and back their view with facts and figures that support such an adventure, while other groups say there is a better way for addressing the continued transportation problem in Great Britain, and they detail their ideas in these reports.
The paper's author is in the camp of those who wish to see this project scrapped and therefore the paper may contain some bias against HS2. The author is cognitive of that fact and will seek to maintain an open mind in...
It is the author's thesis that the amount of money being spent on new construction of a HS2 railroad line could be better spent on upgrading existing forms of transportation, roads, railways and air lines.
Wendover HS2 states that UK taxpayers should have the proposal explained in much greater detail to enable people not familiar with the project's analysis to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the government's case for construction. For the most part, Wendover call's the government's reports 'hyperbole, spin and numerical obfuscation" (p. 2). Additionally, the report states that "any forecast made on the basis of HS2 Ltd. parameters is worthless after c 2016" (p. 5). Needless to say, the report wishes for a lot more than what the government has provided in its reports. The Wendover conclusion is that a "proper evaluation of High Speed rail in the UK needs to be done and its strengths and weakness impartially set out. The body doing this must be one that voters can trust…only then can the public judge such a scheme fairly" (p. 39).
The problem with this particular report is that its facts and figures are no more believable than the ones supplied by the government. The question remains as to whose numbers and facts are the correct ones, and whose aren't?
The report supplied by HS2 Ltd., Demand for Long Distance Service, completed in April 2011, determines that one of the effects of the project is to increase the amount of passengers traveling by high speed rail to 46.2 million each year by 2043. The report shows that 65% of those travelers will come from existing rail services,"7% from car, 6% from air, while 22% would be entirely new trips" (p. 4). This report seems to be rather conservative in its projections, but it is still lambasted by Wendover and other groups as being much too high.
The report issued by A Better Railway for Britain is one of those that lambasts the government's projections. This report states that "the business case for HS2 is very weak and has been based on a number of false premises" (p. 3). The report then goes on…
Public and mass transit are issues confronting nearly every nation as well as many individual municipalities. The UK is no exception and there are currently many proposals on the docket than attempt to resolve mass transit for distance and commute that are rapid and more environmentally sustainable than individual automobile transportation. One of those transportation proposals is HS 2, a high speed train network that would connect many locations,
The National Safety Council approximates the entire losses owing to traffic accidents in 2011 was about $250 billion. There were somewhere in the region of 3 trillion vehicle miles, and 1.7 people per vehicle, so all this protection cost of cars comes to 4.6 cents a passenger mile (as it turns out is more than twice more normal approximations). By means of this 4.6 cent number, a rail line that
As the report, is highlighting several key points that are outlining the strengths of the system. The most notable include: it will reduce congestion, there will be greater levels of productivity, it will integrate the English rail system with the rest of Europe and it can improve the nation's ability to remain competitive. These different elements are important, because they are showing how this strategy will address Britain's current
people using rail in the country has grown by 50 per cent and is mainly driven by sensitivity to the environmental. As a result the government has introduced an investment in a railway network and service improvements that will sustain the growth. This project has triggered some debate where some feel that the network is necessary and that it will benefit those who are inclined to use rail as
In HS2: Valuing the benefits of HS2 (London-West Midlands), the authors consider the direct benefits and disbenefits to users, the wider economic impact, and other economic and social impacts arising from land use changes. The major benefits for users are journey time savings, reduced crowding, and improved reliability. Though HS2 would generate profits, it would cost the government money to implement it. Finally, Dr. J Savin conducted a financial
G. Chunnel), take upwards of 1.5 to 2 decades to adequately plan and construct. Thus, no is the time to look forward to the future of railway in Britain and invest in the possible. This will, in fact, protect the next two generations from being saddled with even higher debt and potentially a lower rate of benefits (Department of Transport 2009). However, other research shows that the government's economic case is