HS2 only connects together the largest city, the second largest city, the third largest city, the fourth largest city, the fifth largest city, the seventh largest city and the ninth largest city in the UK together on a single branched train line which will allow travel between them within an hour and a half. Who cares about such economic frivolity!
I am aware of that, I just think it stands easily without that argument. It is totally amazing and a clear potential competitive advantage for the UK to have so many of its urban centres connected with such short travel times. London to Birmingham will take less time than getting from one side of central London to the other, that is amazing. It’s also going to suck a lot of companies that would otherwise need to be based in London to be close to clients and suppliers out to other cities.
I could well be wrong but this was never one of the touted benefits of HS2 when it was being (mis?)sold to the British public, which makes me very suspicious.
Furthermore, I would guess that the post coronavirus emphasis on remote work would make it less important, only time will tell.
> I could well be wrong but this was never one of the touted benefits of HS2 when it was being (mis?)sold to the British public, which makes me very suspicious.
> Furthermore, I would guess that the post coronavirus emphasis on remote work would make it less important, only time will tell.
It's worthwhile remembering that number of people heading into cities has been rising year-over-year for a long time. Even if we see a 25% decrease in travel, any freed up rail capacity would likely just be taken up by people moving from road to rail. And with a larger decrease, while rail might drop away from being at capacity for a few years it's highly likely to increase again in future.
The capacity easing was always the main reason pushed to those in the know, it was easier to sell to the public based on some new top line figures though, so that's the reason that narrative was used.
HS2 is almost all about easing local commuter routes.
> I could well be wrong but this was never one of the touted benefits of HS2 when it was being (mis?)sold to the British public, which makes me very suspicious.
HS2's PR has been, frankly, awful. Hell, its name has been its biggest failure.
If you read any of the published reports into HS2 then you'll see that capacity is the reason for the project.
This highlights a flaw with the UK's infrastructure projects. The UK is focused on connecting cities with cities, not connection within cities and towns.
Asides from London, plenty of cities and big towns suffer from poor public transport. Getting from one side of town to another without a car should not be a struggle. Right now, I think this should be prioritised above city to city public transport links.
> This highlights a flaw with the UK's infrastructure projects. The UK is focused on connecting cities with cities, not connection within cities and towns.
I agree, but HS2 will provide a huge benefit local and regional rail services rather than what most people assume: Faster travel in and out of London.
Frankly we need a lot more investment into light rail (trams etc.) and buses as well as HS2 and NPR.
Considering I have to visit Cheshire every now and then to see family, the worst part of the journey isn't the Pendolino up to Crewe, but travelling to the train station out to where I need to be. Some of those stations are completely inaccessible without a car, there's no way you could walk it in decent time or without waiting for an infrequent bus.
Which stations? Nantwich has a fairly decent service aside from Sundays, Wrenbury isn't too bad either, and both have a fairly decent connection
The problem in south west cheshire is many places not only aren't on a rail line, they aren't dense enough to keep a bus service running, even with subsidies
