HS2 Phase Two Route Consultation
Freepost RTEL-YAZX-HAZT
Phase Two Route Consultation
PO Box 1152
HARROW
HA1 9LH
Dear Sirs
Response to Phase Two HS2 Consultation
I object to the principle of HS2 as it is poor value for taxpayer money. It will devastate Lymm communities, wildlife and the environment across England. It will provide no benefit for Lymm and the Warrington area and will impose a loss of jobs and l property values on hard working people who will receive no economic benefit or compensation for their financial losses.
.
My responses to the specific questions in the consultation are detailed below.
First name:
Last name:
Address:
Postcode (all capitals):
Email address:
Question 1
The Route and Supporting Infrastructure
Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposed route between the west Midlands and Manchester as described in Chapter 7?
This includes the proposed route alignment, the location of tunnels, ventilation shaft, cuttings, viaducts and depots as well as how the high speed line will connect with the West Coast Main Line.
I totally disagree with the route proposed. No consultation has taken place in my area on the principle of a High Speed railway, and we have therefore not had the opportunity to oppose or otherwise express our views on HS2 in principle prior to consulting on the initial preferred route. This is inconsistent with Phase 1 consultations.
I particularly disagree with the sections of the route from both the junctions near Rostherne and near Lymm to the connection with the West Coast Main Line at Golborne, including the viaduct over the Manchester Ship Canal and the line through Culcheth. I also strongly disagree with the curve of the route around Tatton.
The HS2 Proposed Golborne Connection to the West Coast Main Line will devastate east Lymm where the topography alongside the Bridgewater canal is flat. It will cause visual and sound devastation where four tracks are raised 6 metres above the Bridgewater canal. This will be worsened by the complex grade separated junction by Little Heatley and will continue causing noise pollution on the 345m long viaduct over the Bollin flood plain. Further north it will split the historic village of Warburton in two and devastate this community. Two tracks at 17 metres high crossing over the Manchester ship canal will cause unmitigated blight around Rixton-with-Glazebrook and Hollins Green, and continue on to cause blight to nearly 1000 homes within 500m of the route at Culcheth.
Residential properties will suffer noise and environmental degradation during construction and operation, affecting quality of life and property values. There will be no compensation for these losses in the vast majority of cases.
It will destroy farming communities, (including grade 2 farmland) and agricultural businesses in the entire triangle between a) High Legh/Hoo Green, b) north of the Mere at Rostherne, through to c) Lymm and Warburton, along with the business community at Taylor Business Park with the loss of around 500 jobs and loss of business rates revenue.
It will destroy the amenities it crosses such as the Culcheth Linear Park, the Trans-Pennine trail, and the Bridgewater canal where it is raised over flat landscape and Lymm Cruising Club Moorings. .
The proposed route runs through the green belt between major local conurbations, including the local mossland areas which make construction very difficult. The local environment and birdlife will be severely affected. A previous proposed motorway link through this area was cancelled for these reasons, which are still valid today. Habitat and wildlife destruction on this scale cannot be justified.
HS2 does not take a straight route from Crewe to Manchester Airport as would be expected and required by a high speed line. Instead it takes an unnecessary and hugely expensive (£660m) curve north of Knutsford. Although an attempt at substantiating the reason behind this has been made, the reasoning is flawed and appears to have been made retrospectively to fit the proposals. The Government uses the ‘straight line’ principal to justify its proposals in other sections of the route so it should apply the same principal here with a straight(er) line to Manchester from Crewe. If the Government reasoning for the Tatton curve is applied to the whole HS2 project the entire line should be re-considered to alleviate many residential or wildlife/woodland etc areas from the impact of HS2. This is particularly relevant now that the argument for high speed is secondary to the Government’s more recent argument for capacity.
The logical route would be along the existing rail corridor from Crewe to Manchester, which skirts the airport thus satisfying the requirement for a station at the airport. There is no evidence that alternative routes to that currently proposed, on map HSM12, HSM30, HSM21 and HSM22, have been considered other than the upgrading of the West Coast Main line. The documents showing various options for the route from Crewe to Wigan only show the currently proposed route for this section, with no alternatives.
There can be no argument that a line cannot be constructed directly between Crewe and Manchester on the grounds of challenging topography. This is proven by the fact that HS3 is being discussed at Government levels where the topography is far more challenging on the route north to Scotland. Indeed the current preferred route will involve substantial engineering and cost challenges across the Cheshire Brine Fields.
If HS2 persists in supporting this route, alternatives such as tunnelling, must be considered, which so far they have not. This would alleviate the devastation and losses, and counter any increased construction cost. It would also support the government’s suggested ‘regional growth’ argument.
HS2 will not benefit this area financially once the real financial costs and losses of building HS2 in this region are taken into account and individual home and business owners should not bear these costs through their own losses and taxes.These issues should be addressed directly before the scheme continues.
Connection to West Coast Main Line:
High speed trains traveling from Manchester towards Golborne carry no passengers. This route carries empty High Speed carriages to Golborne for cleaning and storing. HS2 have advised that the decision to site the depot at Golborne was taken after and as a result of the decision on the route location. The depot is there because the line is there. If the line were removed then the depot would be relocated. There is no strategic rationale for the depot being located at Golborne.
This leg of the route carries Classic Compatible stock with passengers to the WCML and on to Scotland. Its justification has been based on time savings for trains to Glasgow. The Government has now moved on to favour the capacity argument. The Golborne connection will not improve capacity on the WCML. Independent reports have shown that costs for this section of the route have been vastly underestimated in comparison with an average of the costs for the rest of the line – this is despite major junctions and viaducts over flood plains and the Manchester Ship Canal.
The HS2 proposed route will result in a worse train service from Warrington Bank Quay. The current service of two trains per hour to and from Scotland will be replaced by one train per hour terminating at Preston. Commuting to the high speed station at Manchester airport would negate any gains made traveling to London from this region.
A connection at Crewe if the WCML were upgraded would achieve far better capacity and economic benefits to the region as it would join Warrington to the high speed network. This would cost a fraction of the Golborne link and cause much less disruption than HS2. Failure to link Warrington to the HS2 network would be detrimental to the town and its surrounding area, as Warrington commands a very important strategic position in the North West being centrally located on the North / South axis between Preston and Stoke, and being central on the East / West axis between Liverpool and Manchester. Any decision to bypass Warrington would harm the town and the region which it is intended to benefit. There is therefore no point in this leg of the route being High Speed, or existing at all within current plans.
Question 2
Proposals for Stations
Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposals for:
a..A Manchester station at Manchester Piccadilly as described in Chapter 7?
b. An additional station near Manchester Airport as described in Chapter 7?
I disagree in principle with HS2 and with the stations. The stations at Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport are too far away, and too difficult to get to, to be of real benefit to people in the Warrington area. The proposed Golborne Connection will in fact make access to the Manchester Airport station more difficult as it will disrupt a key local route to the Airport. The Manchester station could be sited in Salford to aid an area more in need of regeneration than Piccadilly. The airport station is located too far away – 3 miles - from the airport and the cost of connecting the high speed station with the airport has not been factored in. Any time saved on high speed journeys is negated by the need for localised onward journeys to connecting stations or the airport.
Question 3
Additional Stations
Do you think that there should be any additional stations on the western leg between the West Midlands and Manchester?
HS2 should not be built. The WCML can be upgraded as set out in the 51m proposals. If the Government persists in supporting HS2, the West Coast Main line between Crewe and Golborne should be upgraded instead of building the proposed Golborne connection. This will allow Classic Compatible services to serve Warrington Bank Quay at least as frequently as the current services.
Page 26 of the Consultation Summary says “additional services could be provided between Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Warrington ….” This is, to say the least, misleading. The “additional” service per hour proposed from Birmingham to Preston stopping at Warrington replaces two current services per hour from London and Birmingham to Scotland stopping at Warrington. It is in fact a reduction in services for Warrington.
Upgrading the West Coast Main Line will allow improved services at lower cost than building the Golborne Connection.
Question 7
Appraisal of Sustainability
Please let us know your comments on the Appraisal of Sustainability of the Government’s proposed Phase two route, including the alternatives to the proposed route as described in Chapter 9.
The Appraisal of Sustainability is not the result of an evidence-based assessment and does not consider many of the significant impacts that HS2 will have on this area. Instead it is a high level, desk based, theoretical exercise that is dismissive of the destruction that HS2 will incur. This is contrary to the requirement to consider the impact on communities. The document particularly outlines areas HS2 affects with high noise levels, flood plains (Flood Zone 3) and green belt, but does not address the issues raised. It also refers to the EHS scheme but does not address the fact that those individuals already affected on personal, business, farming and health levels are largely not given any assistance. If the current Government compensation proposals are implemented, only a small fraction of those suffering loss or blight will be compensated and it is wrong to impose an uncompensated loss on people who happen to live near the line.
Question 8
Freed Capacity
Please let us know your comments on how the capacity that would be freed up on the existing rail network by the introduction of the proposed Phase two route could be used as described in Chapter 10?
The proposed HS2 route including the Golborne Connection does not free up capacity on the West Coast Main Line between Crewe and Golborne. In fact the proposal to increase the frequency of trains to Liverpool will actually reduce the service frequency to Warrington.
Instead the WCML should be upgraded to provide additional capacity for HS2 trains and other services. This will cost less, provide more benefits locally, regionally and nationally, and represent much better value for money.