High Speed 2 Rail Link between London and the North of England - Case Study Example

High Speed 2 Rail Link between London and the North of England Modern day society has witnessed a rapid evolution in the transport network, mostly in the recent past few decades. Technology has since been employed to modernize transport and to make it more efficient. However, there is continued increased pressure on the transport infrastructure as it is today. Congestion, waste of man hours on the roads due to traffic snarl-ups, and losses incurred by the economy from such wastage are just but a few issues that have resulted from an overloaded transport network. Outlooks from city planners, governments, and other relevant stakeholders paint a gleam picture if urgent measures are not taken to resolve this. This is mostly because the human population is on the rise putting more pressure on the already overstretched infrastructure. Governments are thus developing and implementing transport models that will correct the situation as it is. The projects are ambitious and costly as well, but are also envisaged to help solve a myriad of problems. This paper will therefore look at such development projects, specifically the high-speed 2-rail link between London and North England, and will examine the arguments advanced for, and against the planned project. The high speed 2 rail link, also popularly referred to as HS2, is a high velocity railway line, planned to link the city of London to Northern England, via the cities of Manchester, Leeds, East Midlands, Birmingham, Sheffield, and Crewe. The Project, estimated to cost over 40 billion pounds, is expected to commence operations in the year 2026, although construction work is set to begin early 2017 (Chapman 44). The completion of the high-speed railway infrastructure is scheduled for 2032. The first phase of the project will link the cities of London and Birmingham, whereas phase two will commence from the north of Birmingham, to connect other key cities, Leeds and Manchester. While phase one of this ambitious project is envisaged to be completed by the year 2026, the second phase will be opened for public use in the year 2033 (Great Britain: Department of Transport 14). The rail project has received enormous support from the Labour Government and from the Liberal Democrat Coalition. The announcement by the government of its plans to build a high speed and high capacity railway to link London and the Northern part of England has elicited both positive and negative feedback from politicians, experts, and members of the public as well. Arguments for and against its implementation have been advanced. We shall therefore start by looking at the arguments for, and then later on examine the arguments developed against its implementation. The benefits of the HS2 are many. Firstly, the rail connection between London and North England will by a great extent reduce the time taken by commuters to connect between the cities along the planned route. The time taken to commute between London and Manchester is envisaged to reduce by less than an hour, while that from Leeds to London is expected to be cut by around 50 minutes. Commuters travelling from Birmingham to London are expected to use only 49 minutes, from about 81 minutes, thus saving 32 minutes. It will also take 37 and 46 minutes less to commute from the cities of Nottingham and Sheffield to London respectively (Chapman 76). This eventually means that time savings, a measure of the amount of time people save while travelling, will significantly increase. This in turn serves to increase the welfare of commuters as time that would have been wasted can now be refocused and utilized on other activities. Secondly, the proposed high-speed link is expected to significantly cut down on the problem of congestion and overcrowding at rail stations. Currently, these two issues have been deemed as serious impediments to the free flow of people and goods. In a few cases, cases of stampede have resulted at train stations. There have been cases of commuters missing their trains as they try to wade through the crowds at the stations and collection of revenue for the stations through issuance of travel tickets has not been optimized. The northern cities, having suffered mostly from the problems of congestion and overcrowding, have welcomed the move. In the HS2 plan, a new station is scheduled to be constructed at Leeds, which will create additional capacity and thus address overcrowding, regarded as a perennial issue (Great Britain: Department of Transport 39). The third argument developed in favour of the implementation of the HS2 is that the project will foster the creation of jobs in the cities and towns where the rail link will pass. The project, being massive, is expected to employ both skilled and unskilled labour. This will create an opportunity for income generation and wealth creation among those employed. The effects of this to the economy are envisaged to be significant as well, as the government cuts down on benefits to the unemployed as the unemployment percentage figure reduces. It is thus able to redirect these resources to other development projects. The successful completion of the HS2 is expected to open up the economy of not only London and North England, but also of the cities lying on the route of the proposed link. This is the fourth argument developed for the project. The railway project is envisaged to provide direct linkages to hundreds of thousands of commuters to and from London every day. It will also provide access to other parts of Europe. Therefore, the economies of these cities will realize exponential growth and development. A possible merger of the economies because of the linking will also create healthy competition to the city of London and will therefore result to the decentralization of resources to these economies (Chapman 137). The fifth benefit of the high-speed two rail links is increase in capacity, mostly along the West Coast Main Line, which is perceived as already overloaded. The new HS2 is expected to actively reduce time taken to travel, as earlier discussed, as well as move more commuters and goods than what is currently moved. Business people, especially those using freight trains to move commodities, are set to benefit more as they are now able to move more goods at shorter time duration. The potential advantages of the rail link between the North of England, as discussed above, are many. However, and most unfortunately, the disadvantages, or the costs, are also equally as many. The cost implication of the HS2 is the first argument that has been developed against its implementation. The project, albeit ambitious and envisaged to solve perennial problems of congestions, is projected to cost the economy over 40 billion pounds in planning and construction costs. The planned construction of the new HS2, upgrades of existing lines, building of new train stations in the cities along the proposed route, and compensations to affected households and businesses will be costly. It is also not very clear who will cater for the cost of the project, whether in part or in full. This uncertainty has led to protests, with a number of local authorities protesting against the HS2 project. These include Leicestershire, Essex, Staffordshire, Leicester, Warwickshire, and Oxfordshire. In a public opinion survey conducted by the transport department about the HS2, 48 percent were in favour of the project with only 10 percent being against (Butcher 67). However, over half of all the respondents concluded that the economy cannot afford the projected costs, and only agreeing to its implementation if the source of the funds is not from the taxpayer. The second argument for the HS2 projects is that the proposed benefits arising from the cost-benefit analysis of the project have been overestimated and overstated as well. Opponents believe that the benefits, estimated to be over 47 billion pounds, have wrongly been calculated as they are based on time value that commuters will save through the usage of a high-speed railway. While they acknowledge the fact that there will be time value savings, the projected figures are too high which then wrongly assume that trains make commuters unproductive. The projected figures are also based on passenger numbers from past years, which do not reflect the current situation in terms of growth of commuter numbers (Chapman 201). Environmental degradation has been also cited as a reason why the high-speed railway project should not take off. The most significant impact to the environment because of laying the railway from London to Northern England is that the damage cannot be quantified financially. Destruction of farmlands, forests, marshlands and other natural habitats is imminent as plans to have the project are underway. A disruption of habitats and migratory routes for wildlife is also foreseen and this may lead to disappearance of some species all together (Walley 107). A fourth argument against the HS2 is that it will lead to destruction of communities and settlements leading to relocation of families and businesses. This has been coupled with the psychological stress that affected residents who have lived in the area for decades will have to go through. Already, there are resistances in many rural areas where the line will be passing through. For instance, residents in the rural parts of Northampton shire are outraged over the rail project. Some residents are already moving out of their farmlands. One of the most affected areas in Northampton shire is the hamlet of lower Thorpe Mandeville which lies in the path of the railway line and whose natural landscape will have to be destroyed (Walley 151). The new railway project will bring about political divisions and inequality. This is the fifth reason opponents of the rail project have put forth. The project is envisaged to link London in the south and Northern England. However, divisions have already arisen with local authorities in the south being against the project’s implementation while those in the north supporting it. Inequality has also been cited as a possible outcome. Basing their argument on lessons from the first high speed railway project, HS1, opponents to the project have explained that areas which already have demand for the new railway, London for instance, will economically outpace other areas with less demand (Butcher 43). In conclusion, the high-speed railway project is a transformational and ambitious project. The benefits are many, and so are the costs. There is thus need to critically re-examine these costs and benefits to the economy and society, with a view to provide direction about whether or not it should be implemented. Work Cited Butcher, Louise. High Speed Two (HS2): The Debate. London: House of Commons Library, 2011. Print. Chapman, Robert. The Rules of Project Risk Management: Implementation Guidelines for Major Projects. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2014. Print. Great Britain: Department of Transport. High Speed Rail: Investing in Britains Future - Phase Two, the Route to Leeds, Manchester and Beyond. London: The Stationery Office, 2013. Print. Walley, Joan. HS2 and the Environment - HC 1076. London: The Stationery Office, 2014. Print. Read More