Existing proposals for HS2 are flawed, but if we engage the right people the idea can work, says Mark Thompson.
HS2 represents a once-in-a-century opportunity to really reshape our economy. On its website www.hs2.org.uk is the headline “Building a connected Britain” – Really? It’s the right ambition, but not exactly what’s on offer. Based on the current proposals, the table below shows the time savings that this investment will buy.
Perhaps HS2 is suffering from poor communication, but with all the emphasis on the benefits of the Birmingham line passing through the Tory heartlands, there appears to be confusion over journey times for places such as the east midlands, York, Sheffield, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Journey times to/from London. www.HS2.co.uk
I tend to think the feasibility study for HS2 was based on “design a route from London to Birmingham capable of being extended to Manchester, then potentially across that incredibly mountainous terrain to Leeds”, rather than what it should have been, namely “design a solution to our chronic outdated transport infrastructure to put Great Britain back at the forefront of innovation for the next century, integrating our major cities, their diverse economies and world renowned universities to compete as a truly United Nation with Beijing, California, Delhi and Germany”.
More to offer
With reduced travel times between London and Scotland, connecting the midlands, north west and north east in between, Britain would have a whole lot more to offer. There are land shortages in the south east, plenty of it up north, so reduced travel times would make development viable for many businesses and new communities.
Selfishly, as a practice with offices in London, Liverpool, Newcastle and Glasgow and a growing portfolio of international projects I know how much more productive we could be and how much easier it would be to attract more international talent to bolster our overseas efforts. Of greater significance, there would be more interest from London and international investors to travel to the regions if access were easier.
But the existing proposals appear set to run the same course as the Heathrow/Stansted/Boris Island debacle and, with the exception of the Olympics, which had an absolute deadline and almost 100% public and political support, all other major infrastructure projects of the past 50 years.
For a different view from Buro Happold’s Philip Bates click here
Where is the political agreement on the priorities: a new air hub, future power supply, inter-city connectivity? Without cross-party support for these essential major projects, that should equally benefit the whole nation rather than a piecemeal approach starting in London, they are doomed to compromise at best, and are more likely to end in failure.
There is long overdue talk of cross-party agreement for such projects, with Sir John Armitt’s idea of a non-politicised infrastructure commission. We cannot allow political point scoring to interfere with our position on the world stage of industry and commerce, and urgently need unity for these projects which are the blood supply of the UK.
For example, if the north east realises its ambition of becoming the silicon valley of advanced manufacturing and new energy industries, then all areas of the UK will benefit from greater connectivity to feed off the opportunities that will arise.
Politicians of all persuasions bang on about the green agenda and carbon reduction, but we are only tinkering at the edges without a properly integrated nationwide transport solution. If HS2 could connect with airports in each city region, we could do away with internal flights altogether. It could also negate the need for another Heathrow runway, as that capacity could be provided in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh or Glasgow.
Park and ride
With the inevitable increase in use of electric cars, out-of-town park-and-ride interchanges could be developed to reduce the number of people from having to drive into city centres simply to board a train in order to leave the city.
Transport visionaries such as Stephenson and Brunel are no doubt turning in their graves at the lack of foresight being shown by our politicians.
Forget the delivery and Olympics and the appointment of a project manager for now. Let’s go back to the drawing board, assume we have a blank canvas and get our modern day innovators and entrepreneurs involved – Dyson and Branson would be a great start, but why stop there? Why not call on the boffins and innovators at Cambridge, Oxford, British Aerospace, Dyson, Jaguar, Lotus, McLaren et al to propose a radical, integrated exciting and visionary solution?
With that sort of input we should be able to design a solution for the long term that will still benefit our great grandchildren rather than being obsolete by the time our unborn grandchildren are old enough to travel alone.
Mark Thompson is managing partner of architect Ryder and a member of the CBI Construction Council
Comments are closed.