High Speed 2 attacked during Lords debate (From Bucks Free Press)

With £(B going into the railways in the Government's announcement yesterday, surely HS2 is dead. Half the money goes to develop the Midland Line.

Far from it!
The £9 billion announced today are (a) just what was spent recently to upgrade the WCML and (b) just some of what is needed whilst we await HS2.

The £17 billion for HS2 phase 1 is only the same cost as Crossrail and that money only starts being spent at the same rate per year from 2017 when Crossrail is completed.

Viscount Astor is wrong on 2 counts.

1) DfT passenger numbers assume only 2% growth when real growth has averaged 6% each year over the past 20 years. Last year it was 9%. So in "learning the lessons of overestimating HS1" they have now UNDERestimated likely traffic for HS2 and how soon we will need it.

2) If people did not want to reach their destination faster we would all be still using slow transport like boats across the Atlantic or horses and carts to Birmingham. You also cannot work on a crowded train with no seats. HS2 means more seats, lower fares on old lines, faster journeys on the new one and direct Eurostar connections that will reduce air flights.

3) The internet has also INCREASED the desire to travel and meet new contacts with teleconferencing remaining a tiny percentage of that communication.

I meant Viscount Astor is wrong on THREE counts :-)

I appear to be joining the DfT on UNDERestimating how urgently we need HS2!

John Jefkins wrote:
Far from it! The £9 billion announced today are (a) just what was spent recently to upgrade the WCML and (b) just some of what is needed whilst we await HS2. The £17 billion for HS2 phase 1 is only the same cost as Crossrail and that money only starts being spent at the same rate per year from 2017 when Crossrail is completed. Viscount Astor is wrong on 2 counts. 1) DfT passenger numbers assume only 2% growth when real growth has averaged 6% each year over the past 20 years. Last year it was 9%. So in "learning the lessons of overestimating HS1" they have now UNDERestimated likely traffic for HS2 and how soon we will need it. 2) If people did not want to reach their destination faster we would all be still using slow transport like boats across the Atlantic or horses and carts to Birmingham. You also cannot work on a crowded train with no seats. HS2 means more seats, lower fares on old lines, faster journeys on the new one and direct Eurostar connections that will reduce air flights. 3) The internet has also INCREASED the desire to travel and meet new contacts with teleconferencing remaining a tiny percentage of that communication.

(1) Thanks to the adoption of technology, in the form of the telephone, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(2) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the eMail, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(3) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Internet, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(4) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the World Wide Web, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(5) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Web Conferencing, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(6) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Instant Messaging, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(7) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of Mobile Devices, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
Technology can be used to improve communications and collaboration whilst decreasing the need to actually travel. Moving ones and zeroes down a broadband line is more energy efficient that moving bodies along through physical transport.

Why should all East Coast bound trains go to the west to Birmingham and then back to the East. This is wasteful in energy. The HS2 2 track route is inadequate in capacity and phase 1 is too costly per kilometre. The era of depriving people and denial for mistakes should change to a more progressive one. MPs seem very defensive as mistakes arise more frequently. HS2 has been poorly conceived and people are right to express their displeasures. Clegg and Cameron are shortsighted to support the current phase 1 route currently.

gpn01 wrote:

John Jefkins wrote:
Far from it! The £9 billion announced today are (a) just what was spent recently to upgrade the WCML and (b) just some of what is needed whilst we await HS2. The £17 billion for HS2 phase 1 is only the same cost as Crossrail and that money only starts being spent at the same rate per year from 2017 when Crossrail is completed. Viscount Astor is wrong on 2 counts. 1) DfT passenger numbers assume only 2% growth when real growth has averaged 6% each year over the past 20 years. Last year it was 9%. So in "learning the lessons of overestimating HS1" they have now UNDERestimated likely traffic for HS2 and how soon we will need it. 2) If people did not want to reach their destination faster we would all be still using slow transport like boats across the Atlantic or horses and carts to Birmingham. You also cannot work on a crowded train with no seats. HS2 means more seats, lower fares on old lines, faster journeys on the new one and direct Eurostar connections that will reduce air flights. 3) The internet has also INCREASED the desire to travel and meet new contacts with teleconferencing remaining a tiny percentage of that communication.

(1) Thanks to the adoption of technology, in the form of the telephone, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(2) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the eMail, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(3) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Internet, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(4) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the World Wide Web, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(5) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Web Conferencing, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(6) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Instant Messaging, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(7) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of Mobile Devices, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
Technology can be used to improve communications and collaboration whilst decreasing the need to actually travel. Moving ones and zeroes down a broadband line is more energy efficient that moving bodies along through physical transport.

Thats you personally, not everybody does that, it may not be convenient for everybody to do that, some people may wish to conduct business face to face in person, which to be honest i think a majority of people do.

miccles wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

John Jefkins wrote: Far from it! The £9 billion announced today are (a) just what was spent recently to upgrade the WCML and (b) just some of what is needed whilst we await HS2. The £17 billion for HS2 phase 1 is only the same cost as Crossrail and that money only starts being spent at the same rate per year from 2017 when Crossrail is completed. Viscount Astor is wrong on 2 counts. 1) DfT passenger numbers assume only 2% growth when real growth has averaged 6% each year over the past 20 years. Last year it was 9%. So in "learning the lessons of overestimating HS1" they have now UNDERestimated likely traffic for HS2 and how soon we will need it. 2) If people did not want to reach their destination faster we would all be still using slow transport like boats across the Atlantic or horses and carts to Birmingham. You also cannot work on a crowded train with no seats. HS2 means more seats, lower fares on old lines, faster journeys on the new one and direct Eurostar connections that will reduce air flights. 3) The internet has also INCREASED the desire to travel and meet new contacts with teleconferencing remaining a tiny percentage of that communication.

(1) Thanks to the adoption of technology, in the form of the telephone, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (2) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the eMail, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (3) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Internet, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (4) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the World Wide Web, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (5) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Web Conferencing, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (6) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Instant Messaging, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (7) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of Mobile Devices, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . Technology can be used to improve communications and collaboration whilst decreasing the need to actually travel. Moving ones and zeroes down a broadband line is more energy efficient that moving bodies along through physical transport.

Thats you personally, not everybody does that, it may not be convenient for everybody to do that, some people may wish to conduct business face to face in person, which to be honest i think a majority of people do.

Yes, indeed some people prefer to meet face to face. Advances in technology mean that you no longer need to though. When you look at operating in a global economy, it simply is no longer practical, nor necessary, to travel.
.
Yes, some people prefer to stay with centuries old ways of working. The rest of us are in the 21st Century - when we're able to use technology instead of burning fossil fuels unnecessarily.

@ John Jefkins, the trains are crowded because people get on at various stops.

A non-stop train from Birmingham to London is not going to solve local commuter congestion, unless you happen to live either end of the line.

If I wanted to use HS2, I would have to get the Chiltern line into London to join it, it's quicker to get on the Chiltern line the other way to Birmingham.

Imagine a car journey on the M1 or M40 where there are no junctions to get off. That is what is being proposed.

Charles Norrie wrote:
With £(B going into the railways in the Government's announcement yesterday, surely HS2 is dead. Half the money goes to develop the Midland Line.

I agree, I think improvements to the existing infrastructure will signal an end to HS2 and not before time.

miccles wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

John Jefkins wrote: Far from it! The £9 billion announced today are (a) just what was spent recently to upgrade the WCML and (b) just some of what is needed whilst we await HS2. The £17 billion for HS2 phase 1 is only the same cost as Crossrail and that money only starts being spent at the same rate per year from 2017 when Crossrail is completed. Viscount Astor is wrong on 2 counts. 1) DfT passenger numbers assume only 2% growth when real growth has averaged 6% each year over the past 20 years. Last year it was 9%. So in "learning the lessons of overestimating HS1" they have now UNDERestimated likely traffic for HS2 and how soon we will need it. 2) If people did not want to reach their destination faster we would all be still using slow transport like boats across the Atlantic or horses and carts to Birmingham. You also cannot work on a crowded train with no seats. HS2 means more seats, lower fares on old lines, faster journeys on the new one and direct Eurostar connections that will reduce air flights. 3) The internet has also INCREASED the desire to travel and meet new contacts with teleconferencing remaining a tiny percentage of that communication.

(1) Thanks to the adoption of technology, in the form of the telephone, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (2) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the eMail, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (3) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Internet, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (4) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the World Wide Web, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (5) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Web Conferencing, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (6) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Instant Messaging, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (7) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of Mobile Devices, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . Technology can be used to improve communications and collaboration whilst decreasing the need to actually travel. Moving ones and zeroes down a broadband line is more energy efficient that moving bodies along through physical transport.

Thats you personally, not everybody does that, it may not be convenient for everybody to do that, some people may wish to conduct business face to face in person, which to be honest i think a majority of people do.

My company has a worldwide travel ban for non essesntial travel, most companies I deal with have the same. With travel restrictions in place and having invested in alternative technology, I can assure you it's less likely to change in a hurry.

chriseaglen wrote:
Why should all East Coast bound trains go to the west to Birmingham and then back to the East. This is wasteful in energy. The HS2 2 track route is inadequate in capacity and phase 1 is too costly per kilometre. The era of depriving people and denial for mistakes should change to a more progressive one. MPs seem very defensive as mistakes arise more frequently. HS2 has been poorly conceived and people are right to express their displeasures. Clegg and Cameron are shortsighted to support the current phase 1 route currently.

HS2 does NOT divert all East Coast trains via Birmingham, although it will indeed make journeys from Birmingham to Derby/Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle hours faster than now.

HS2 will add capacity to the East Coast and Midland Mainline by enabling faster routes to Leeds and Sheffield.

As for Energy, Eurostar emits 10% of the CO2 as a plane (eg Manchester or Birmingham to Paris) and far less than a car. Studies have shown how new fast trains use less energy per passenger than old slow ones (they carry more passengers, stop less often and the latest TGV goes 40 mph faster yet uses less energy than the current TGV).

HS2 has been conceived by a consensus of all 3 UK parties and is also supported by the SNP. It is not poorly conceived but people are right to keep questioning the detail until for example Heathrow gets linked in within phase 1 (instead of 2) and a through station is included in London instead of a Euston terminus,

Track capacity is not actually a problem but I agree that costs are abnormally high on phase 1. Lots of money being spent to keep those folks in Bucks happy.... Still room for improvement - but with a 4 party concensus HS2 WILL happen.

Malc London wrote:
@ John Jefkins, the trains are crowded because people get on at various stops.

A non-stop train from Birmingham to London is not going to solve local commuter congestion, unless you happen to live either end of the line.

If I wanted to use HS2, I would have to get the Chiltern line into London to join it, it's quicker to get on the Chiltern line the other way to Birmingham.

Imagine a car journey on the M1 or M40 where there are no junctions to get off. That is what is being proposed.

But HS2 is to speed LONG journeys (like London-Manchester or Leeds, London-Scotland, Manchester or Birmingham to Paris or Amsterdam or Germany or Geneva) and the Chilterns line is a feeder line to get you to Birmingham International or London to join it.

The M1 too only has less junctions than a slow road.

What is being proposed is no different to the 12,000 miles of high speed lines recently opened across the world. People travel from Paris to Brussels non-stop. I have been from Marseilles to Paris (the equivalent of London-Dundee) in 3hrs non-stop.

It WILL solve commuter congestion (eg Milton Keynes-London or Coventry-Birmingham by freeing up the old WCML and Midland Mainline to take more slow trains. You are right that on the Chiltern line it could actually fill more trains with people that used to drive to an airport.

wayneo wrote:

miccles wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

John Jefkins wrote: Far from it! The £9 billion announced today are (a) just what was spent recently to upgrade the WCML and (b) just some of what is needed whilst we await HS2. The £17 billion for HS2 phase 1 is only the same cost as Crossrail and that money only starts being spent at the same rate per year from 2017 when Crossrail is completed. Viscount Astor is wrong on 2 counts. 1) DfT passenger numbers assume only 2% growth when real growth has averaged 6% each year over the past 20 years. Last year it was 9%. So in "learning the lessons of overestimating HS1" they have now UNDERestimated likely traffic for HS2 and how soon we will need it. 2) If people did not want to reach their destination faster we would all be still using slow transport like boats across the Atlantic or horses and carts to Birmingham. You also cannot work on a crowded train with no seats. HS2 means more seats, lower fares on old lines, faster journeys on the new one and direct Eurostar connections that will reduce air flights. 3) The internet has also INCREASED the desire to travel and meet new contacts with teleconferencing remaining a tiny percentage of that communication.

(1) Thanks to the adoption of technology, in the form of the telephone, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (2) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the eMail, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (3) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Internet, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (4) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the World Wide Web, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (5) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Web Conferencing, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (6) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Instant Messaging, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (7) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of Mobile Devices, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . Technology can be used to improve communications and collaboration whilst decreasing the need to actually travel. Moving ones and zeroes down a broadband line is more energy efficient that moving bodies along through physical transport.

Thats you personally, not everybody does that, it may not be convenient for everybody to do that, some people may wish to conduct business face to face in person, which to be honest i think a majority of people do.

My company has a worldwide travel ban for non essesntial travel, most companies I deal with have the same. With travel restrictions in place and having invested in alternative technology, I can assure you it's less likely to change in a hurry.

Despite all this, rail travel grew 9% last year and averages 6% growth each year. LONG distance travel by train on lines like the WCML and Midland Mainline have been those growing the most.

Whilst air travel dropped and whilst we have had a very bad recession, rail travel kept growing.

Over a longer time frame, technology certainly has not dampened people's desire to travel - quite the opposite is true. Whilst it is true that businesses right now are restricting unnecesary travel, the facts show that rail travel just keeps growing.

We need extra capacity (especially for long distance routes). Building a fast new line does not actually cost that much more than buildling a slow one - but gets it paid for faster by attracting new passengers (eg London-Scotland or Manchester-Paris air travellers.

And the idea that people actually want to travel slowly is plain daft. Business people value time spent at their destination more than time spent getting there - but do prefer train travel to driving or flying as they can at least do something en-route.

gpn01 wrote:

John Jefkins wrote:
Far from it! The £9 billion announced today are (a) just what was spent recently to upgrade the WCML and (b) just some of what is needed whilst we await HS2. The £17 billion for HS2 phase 1 is only the same cost as Crossrail and that money only starts being spent at the same rate per year from 2017 when Crossrail is completed. Viscount Astor is wrong on 2 counts. 1) DfT passenger numbers assume only 2% growth when real growth has averaged 6% each year over the past 20 years. Last year it was 9%. So in "learning the lessons of overestimating HS1" they have now UNDERestimated likely traffic for HS2 and how soon we will need it. 2) If people did not want to reach their destination faster we would all be still using slow transport like boats across the Atlantic or horses and carts to Birmingham. You also cannot work on a crowded train with no seats. HS2 means more seats, lower fares on old lines, faster journeys on the new one and direct Eurostar connections that will reduce air flights. 3) The internet has also INCREASED the desire to travel and meet new contacts with teleconferencing remaining a tiny percentage of that communication.

(1) Thanks to the adoption of technology, in the form of the telephone, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(2) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the eMail, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(3) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Internet, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(4) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the World Wide Web, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(5) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Web Conferencing, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(6) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Instant Messaging, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
(7) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of Mobile Devices, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings.
.
Technology can be used to improve communications and collaboration whilst decreasing the need to actually travel. Moving ones and zeroes down a broadband line is more energy efficient that moving bodies along through physical transport.

Thanks to the introduction of technology (TV, internet, telephone) people meet more people, can talk more often to them and end up wanting to meet them in person MORE than ever - either socially or for business reasons.

Travel has grown rather than shrunk over the last 100 years whilst communication has been made easier and cheaper over longer distances. The Internet is really only one stage in that process and the growth graph has not faultered.

Our economy requires us to enhance our infrastructure to keep up with that demand - and a 2 track electric railway is a lot more enviromentally friendly than more motorways and airports.

Just look at HS1 in Kent to see how people talked their own property values down in a panic over their new high speed line - only to find that it blends in very well and you can spend all afternoon in a garden nearby and not hear a single train (eg Godington House near Ashford).

John Jefkins wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

John Jefkins wrote: Far from it! The £9 billion announced today are (a) just what was spent recently to upgrade the WCML and (b) just some of what is needed whilst we await HS2. The £17 billion for HS2 phase 1 is only the same cost as Crossrail and that money only starts being spent at the same rate per year from 2017 when Crossrail is completed. Viscount Astor is wrong on 2 counts. 1) DfT passenger numbers assume only 2% growth when real growth has averaged 6% each year over the past 20 years. Last year it was 9%. So in "learning the lessons of overestimating HS1" they have now UNDERestimated likely traffic for HS2 and how soon we will need it. 2) If people did not want to reach their destination faster we would all be still using slow transport like boats across the Atlantic or horses and carts to Birmingham. You also cannot work on a crowded train with no seats. HS2 means more seats, lower fares on old lines, faster journeys on the new one and direct Eurostar connections that will reduce air flights. 3) The internet has also INCREASED the desire to travel and meet new contacts with teleconferencing remaining a tiny percentage of that communication.

(1) Thanks to the adoption of technology, in the form of the telephone, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (2) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the eMail, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (3) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Internet, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (4) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the World Wide Web, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (5) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Web Conferencing, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (6) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of the Instant Messaging, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . (7) Thanks to the introduction of technology, in the form of Mobile Devices, I don't need to travel to attend so many meetings. . Technology can be used to improve communications and collaboration whilst decreasing the need to actually travel. Moving ones and zeroes down a broadband line is more energy efficient that moving bodies along through physical transport.

Thanks to the introduction of technology (TV, internet, telephone) people meet more people, can talk more often to them and end up wanting to meet them in person MORE than ever - either socially or for business reasons. Travel has grown rather than shrunk over the last 100 years whilst communication has been made easier and cheaper over longer distances. The Internet is really only one stage in that process and the growth graph has not faultered. Our economy requires us to enhance our infrastructure to keep up with that demand - and a 2 track electric railway is a lot more enviromentally friendly than more motorways and airports. Just look at HS1 in Kent to see how people talked their own property values down in a panic over their new high speed line - only to find that it blends in very well and you can spend all afternoon in a garden nearby and not hear a single train (eg Godington House near Ashford).

Agree completely with the need for investment in infrastructure. Where we differ is what we each consider the important infrastructure to invest in. For me, there's greater business benefit to be derived from investing in technology infrastructure than from spending money on transport infrastructure.

chriseaglen wrote:
Why should all East Coast bound trains go to the west to Birmingham and then back to the East. This is wasteful in energy. The HS2 2 track route is inadequate in capacity and phase 1 is too costly per kilometre. The era of depriving people and denial for mistakes should change to a more progressive one. MPs seem very defensive as mistakes arise more frequently. HS2 has been poorly conceived and people are right to express their displeasures. Clegg and Cameron are shortsighted to support the current phase 1 route currently.

Why do you get it so wrong Mr Eaglen! And it isn't even April 1st!

You clearly don't understand the subject in slightest.

Your words suggest that:

The demand for HS2 is indeed far more than DfT have estimated and that a 2 track HS2 is not enough!?

And that, HS2 should be wider (4 track?) and possibly re-routed to follow a different alignment than that proposed?

Perhaps you can describe, in the words of the genius that you think you are, what it is that HS2 should be doing?

Chiltonians wrote:

chriseaglen wrote:
Why should all East Coast bound trains go to the west to Birmingham and then back to the East. This is wasteful in energy. The HS2 2 track route is inadequate in capacity and phase 1 is too costly per kilometre. The era of depriving people and denial for mistakes should change to a more progressive one. MPs seem very defensive as mistakes arise more frequently. HS2 has been poorly conceived and people are right to express their displeasures. Clegg and Cameron are shortsighted to support the current phase 1 route currently.

Why do you get it so wrong Mr Eaglen! And it isn't even April 1st!

You clearly don't understand the subject in slightest.

Your words suggest that:

The demand for HS2 is indeed far more than DfT have estimated and that a 2 track HS2 is not enough!?

And that, HS2 should be wider (4 track?) and possibly re-routed to follow a different alignment than that proposed?

Perhaps you can describe, in the words of the genius that you think you are, what it is that HS2 should be doing?

I agree with you that the current HS2 route is right for phase 1, but Chris Eaglen may have a point for phase 3 (ie around 2040).

France is already having to plan a SECOND High Speed line between their top two cities - Paris-Lyon.

Our Y shaped network will in all probability turn into a letter H in the 2040s - with a second route to London from the East Midlands either following the M1 / Midland Mainline or perhaps the A1 / ECML / Stansted.

For now though the main demand is between London-Birmingham-Ma
nchester with a Birmingham-East Midlands-Sheffield-L
eeds/York spur.

The Y route is correct now and it can be later turned into a letter H - to thus later add 2 more tracks to London from the East Midlands along a 2nd route..

GPNO wrote:
Agree completely with the need for investment in infrastructure. Where we differ is what we each consider the important infrastructure to invest in. For me, there's greater business benefit to be derived from investing in technology infrastructure than from spending money on transport infrastructure.

John Jefkins reply:
If people travelling by rail has been growing at over 5% per year for the past 20 years and shows no signs of stopping (it grew 9% last year), do you not agree that:
a) the Dft's prediction of only 2% is too small
b) that it is quite important to invest in the very rail transport infrastructure where passengers have mostly grown - ie intercity.rail (which these days requires high speed and limited stop).

If you're just going to use growth rate statistics to justify spending money then surely you shoud spend it on the things that are growing fastest?
.
Percentage growth of airline passengers at the beginning of 2011 was around 13%. Should we instead build airports because that's a greater (actual) growth rate?

gpn01 wrote:
If you're just going to use growth rate statistics to justify spending money then surely you shoud spend it on the things that are growing fastest?
.
Percentage growth of airline passengers at the beginning of 2011 was around 13%. Should we instead build airports because that's a greater (actual) growth rate?

No because we are talking about BRITISH infrastructure connecting BRITISH cities.

There has been a decline in UK domestic and short haul air passengers over the past 20 years as rail has taken more of markets such as London-Liverpool (100%), London-Manchester and London-Paris (Eurostar now has 85% of what used to be the busiest international air route).

Its a complicated story though. For example. HS2 from Heathrow to Europe could take 14% of its short haul market to help Heathrow win more long haul business without needing runway 3 (and before HS2 even crossed the Chilterns). HS2 phase 2 could then free up another 7% of Heathrow to enable it to win yet more long haul business.

High Speed Rail from Manchester, Birmingham, East Midlands airports to Europe could equally relieve each of those airports of many of their short haul flights (to Germany, France, Holland etc) to enable each of them to fly more long haul routes.