Liverpool and High Speed Two.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Gareth

Martin, until the finalised route of HS2 is decided, there's not much more to say than, at least personally, hasn't already been said, time and time again. But hey, for old times sake...

HS2, unless radically altered, is not good for Liverpool. Anyone trying to spin it as such is either a fool or a liar. It's all about damage limitation, so far as Liverpool's concerned. All that's up for contest is how large Liverpool's handicap in comparision to Manchester (and to some extend, Leeds) will be. The whole project is ideologically driven. We apparently need dedicated, captive France-style high speed lines purely because other countries have it and it's deemed necessary for a developed (and even more so 'European') country, regardless of local needs or conditions. It's also an EU project for a continent-wide network. That's why, no matter your logic, Martin, over the route going west of Stoke, it will go east, despite the higher costs and engineering hurdles, in order to most serve the administrative centre of the UK and EU region designated as UKD. Even in times of recession, money's no object when the project is ideologically driven. It is above budgets and above sanity or common sense.

Unless Liverpool gets a compromise that's drastically better than the provisional 'Lichfield' plan, it serves no interest for us that it happens at all and the city should do whatever it possibly can, legally, to slow down and frustrate the project, possibly working with other councils that are opposed to it. Of course, none of the city region councils officially oppose the project or seemingly have anything to say either way on it. Add to this that the daft Chamber Of Commerce actually support it, then one can appreciate what we're up against.

And before Kurt arrives and turns this into a boring Liverpool v Manchester 'clash of the egos' thing, I'll put in a reassurance clause that it isn't some irrational hate of Manchester or Mancunians and thus not wanting them to have shiny high speed trains because of hatred. Quite simply, it's just not in Liverpool's civic interest for this to happen. And if Liverpool's to be executed at the alter for this rather bizarre project, I for one don't want us to just go meekly to the chopping block without a fuss.

The need for HS2, the economic benefits and disbenefits, the environmental benefits and disbenefits and whether Maglev would be better has been discussed at great length elsewhere. What I believe matters to Liverpool is the alignment and that is what we will find out shortly. Only when that has been published can we really assess whether HS2 is good for our city. I hope you are not right about the East of Stoke route.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by tomo90

I have just read the second one and it has changed my mind. I dont think it will be good for Liverpool at all after reading that. Its all about Manchester for the North West with possible extensions to Liverpool and Preston. I understand Manchester will get a better service because:

1] It is more central in the region.
2] It has a bigger economy.
3] It has more demand due to population.

However, as a resident in Liverpool I think it would be disastrous for the city to be put at a disadvantage this way.

Like Gareth said, before Kurt comes on, this is not about any hatred, its about wanting the best outcome for your city and the current proposals are not in the interests of the North West as a whole but Manchester and Manchester only.

Again, I just want to say that I know Manchester will receive a better service from HS2 but there is nothing currently that would make me think that Liverpool would benefit at all and that is wrong.

That Manchester will get a better service from HS2 goes without saying. However, I repeat the point about the alignment. An alignment too far to the east (particularly the East of Stoke route) would forever pin HS2 to a direct Manchester alignment from which Liverpool would be served by a branch (even if, at some time in the future, that branch could become a dedicated captive route). A more westerly alignment will give us everything to play for. We aren't going to get captive trains to Lime Street announced any time soon but that doesn't mean that there is not still plenty to play for.

[Gareth]

I hope I'm not right either. In fact, I'll never be so happier to be wrong. That said, it really will be whether we face the death penalty or get commuted to life imprisonment. The only chance of it going west of Stoke, I reckon, is if Scotland comes into play. Despite what that NWBLT believes (typically for anything 'North West'), Manchester is not the natural through route from the south to Scotland, which both the West Coast Mainline and the M6 attest to. If it does go west of Stoke, then it will be because they were thinking of this northern 'phase 3' extension and not because of Liverpool's needs. That said, with the nationalist administration up there prioritising a high speed line between Glasgow & Edinburgh as well as trying to get Scotland out of the UK altogether, I'm not supremely confident that the hacks down in Whitehall will be overly enthusiastic in trying to accomodate Scotland, at this point in time.

Either way, we'll find out in the first quarter of 2013, I'm led to believe. It was supposed to be this Autumn but it got postponed for whatever reason.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Martin S

That Manchester will get a better service from HS2 goes without saying. However, I repeat the point about the alignment. An alignment too far to the east (particularly the East of Stoke route) would forever pin HS2 to a direct Manchester alignment from which Liverpool would be served by a branch (even if, at some time in the future, that branch could become a dedicated captive route). A more westerly alignment will give us everything to play for. We aren't going to get captive trains to Lime Street announced any time soon but that doesn't mean that there is not still plenty to play for.

Being pedantic, but it doesn't necessarily cement Liverpool on a branch of Manchester. Theoretically, they could build yet another captive spur of the phase 2 line before Stoke, so you get one going east and one going west. Of course, they're not going to do that for Liverpool, either from the outset of retrospectively. So you are right, ultimately.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by jets9

Thank you Martin for your welcome precis on HS2, some of the history and maneuverings.

This is wholly and emphatically a political sum game at this point.
Maybe Iam going to make an unfair criticism now, but the eerie silence around what can't even be described as a Liverpool (region) campaign is for me deeply disheartening. Where is the natural cross party support group?

I despair at the quality of politicians and political leadership in this city. And as a concerned voter, I want to crawl all over the diary of Joe Anderson and find out what he has done, what he is doing and what he proposes to do to bring about the best possible result for the city.'

If it's a case of treading softly and lobbying quietly (from him) which in turn achieves a good result, then I will praise him. But if that isn't the case (or the outcome) then I will wish him banished to political hades. Simple as. In this case the political and economic stakes are just too high.

Jets,
Joe's role in the cruise liner terminal saga has given him a very public profile. It seems odd that he should have such myopia over the issue of HS2 but it may be because of the political issues surrounding the project.

It is a cliche but politics is the art of the possible. We would like a direct captive service all the way to Liverpool on the straightest alignment but to argue for that would put us at odds with Manchester and, really, we couldn't justify it. However, if the Liverpool argument boils down to just an extension from an agreed alignment then the issue becomes far more straightforward. That is what I am hoping is going to happen.

[tomo90]

Originally Posted by Gareth

It was point 1 I was taking issue with, though points 2 & 3 needed to be put into context.

I do agree that Liverpool shouldnt accept "being out on a limb" but Manchester is more central and that is desired in this day and age for some reason. By central, I know its not in the centre of the NW but its the biggest part of it and is in a better place for a connection from Birmingham and even London.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Gareth

I hope I'm not right either. In fact, I'll never be so happier to be wrong. That said, it really will be whether we face the death penalty or get commuted to life imprisonment. The only chance of it going west of Stoke, I reckon, is if Scotland comes into play. Despite what that NWBLT believes (typically for anything 'North West'), Manchester is not the natural through route from the south to Scotland, which both the West Coast Mainline and the M6 attest to. If it does go west of Stoke, then it will be because they were thinking of this northern 'phase 3' extension and not because of Liverpool's needs. That said, with the nationalist administration up there prioritising a high speed line between Glasgow & Edinburgh as well as trying to get Scotland out of the UK altogether, I'm not supremely confident that the hacks down in Whitehall will be overly enthusiastic in trying to accomodate Scotland, at this point in time.

Either way, we'll find out in the first quarter of 2013, I'm led to believe. It was supposed to be this Autumn but it got postponed for whatever reason.

Hope you're not right about the decision being delayed. I might not be around for the opening of HS2 but I would like a good chance of knowing which way it will go.

I think that this is best kept to an issue of geography. Personally, I get bored with all this Manchester north west capital stuff and it is the sort of thing that attracts Kurt. I am happy(ish) to accept that Manchester will get the captive service but it depends on whether that is at the expense of a good, environmentally friendly and relatively low cost alignment that could provide Liverpool and other places with a satisfactory service.

One point to remember - Liverpool is east of Edinburgh. That means that a route running west to give good access to our city will have to continue west to access Scotlands main cities. (This, of course, assumes that the Anglo-Scottish Phase 3 route will use the west arm of HS2).

In practice, that westward shift will have to happen somewhere between Lichfield and Preston as, further north of there the route is effectively constrained to the existing M6, WCML corridor by the topography.

Adopting the West of Stoke route would allow the westward shift to be made early enough to give Liverpool a good service.

The speculation about the East of Stoke route is that it will end up at Davenport Green (just north of Manchester Airport) where an Airport / 'Manchester Outskirts' station will be constructed. From there, the line will bifurcate with the eastern arm going to Manchester City Centre and the western arm tunnelling under Altrincham and the Ship Canal and then overland toward Wigan where it will rejoin the WCML.

Some speculation has the route going right through central Manchester with Piccadilly Station being made a through station for Scotland services. (That may be possible with classic compatible trains but I doubt it would be practical for the main high speed line as there are technical problems with intermediate stations on high speed routes).

A northern continuation of a West of Stoke route going via Crewe would face the obstacle of the Manchester Ship Canal but overall costs may be significantly less and influence the benefit:cost ratio.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by GLCBanana

Martin, that was a good summary of the issues except you missed one point which I believe is germane: correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the classic compatible trains aren't capable of running as fast on the high speed line as the captives? So any city that is served by classic compatibles isn't just disadvantaged because part of the route is along the existing track, but also because the leg of the journey along the new HS rail won't be as fast as the captive trains running along the same stretch?

Is that right??

I've not heard that one, GLCB and I doubt it would be right simply because running slower trains on HS2 would reduce its capacity by taking more than one train path.

The issue with classic compatibles on classic track is that they cannot round curves at the same speed as Penolinos because they do not have body-tilting mechanisms.

Actually, what is proposed for HS2 in terms of the classic compatibles is very similar to the services that they have in France with TGV, which is a classic compatible high speed train. For years, places such as Bordeaux and Marseilles have had services to Paris with only part of the route on the high speed LGV route. The LGV extensions were built later.

[Gareth]

I can see a theme with you hoping I'm not right.

The Manchester regional capital stuff may be boring but it's a reality and one which Whitehall arranges both their internal administration around and national infrastructure projects. It's hardly 'US Government arranged 911' conspiracy pedigree. Hitting on Tomo's response, I'll repeat that Manchester isn't a natural viapoint between Scotland and the south. It's at the foot of the Pennines and so the land is hilly. I also see no plans that even tentatively suggest that the Manchester spur will be designed with extension beyond central Manchester in mind. It's also no closer to Birmingham or London. Yes, as the crow flies, it's marginally closer to the latter but terrain makes this largely irrelevent. The only reason Manchester trains will be faster than Liverpool's after HS2 Phase 2 will be because the trains will be faster for a longer proportion of the journey.

Personally, I've always liked your Fiddlers Ferry idea, utlising Warrington Bank Quay Low Level as another stop on the Liverpool branch. This would reduce Liverpool's time penalty considerably due to not leaving HS2 until as far as Warrington and then still having a pretty much dedicated line from there to Liverpool South Parkway. Sadly, I've not seen even tentative signs that this has been remotely considered. That said, it would depend how busy that section of track is. I know it's used for freight but I'm not sure how occassional this is.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Gareth

I can see a theme with you hoping I'm not right.

The Manchester regional capital stuff may be boring but it's a reality and one which Whitehall arranges both their internal administration around and national infrastructure projects. It's hardly 'US Government arranged 911' conspiracy pedigree. Hitting on Tomo's response, I'll repeat that Manchester isn't a natural viapoint between Scotland and the south. It's at the foot of the Pennines and so the land is hilly. I also see no plans that even tentatively suggest that the Manchester spur will be designed with extension beyond central Manchester in mind. It's also no closer to Birmingham or London. Yes, as the crow flies, it's marginally closer to the latter but terrain makes this largely irrelevent. The only reason Manchester trains will be faster than Liverpool's after HS2 Phase 2 will be because the trains will be faster for a longer proportion of the journey.

Personally, I've always liked your Fiddlers Ferry idea, utlising Warrington Bank Quay Low Level as another stop on the Liverpool branch. This would reduce Liverpool's time penalty considerably due to not leaving HS2 until as far as Warrington and then still having a pretty much dedicated line from there to Liverpool South Parkway. Sadly, I've not seen even tentative signs that this has been remotely considered. That said, it would depend how busy that section of track is. I know it's used for freight but I'm not sure how occassional this is.

I say the Manchester Regional Capital thing is boring because it intrudes into every thread where there is some issue between the two cities and it is something that can't be resolved. Also, I'm not convinced that government is so determined to do down our part of the world - well no more than any other part of non-London Britain. After all, three of the biggest transport projects in Britain are in progress or about to start in our area - City Line electrification, the Mersey Gateway Bridge and the Liverpool 2 post-panamax development.

The whole reason that I revived this thread was to point out that there is a possibility that Phase 2 of HS2 will have a number of positives for the Liverpool City Region and, if so, we as Liverpool forummers should take an interest in it.

[golden66]

You lot need to do your research:

There is growing evidence from studies of existing high speed rail services in other countries that, far from pushing economic growth out from the centre to the regions, high speed rail networks can have the opposite effect. They can suck economic activity from the regions in towards the centre. There is a real danger of economic growth draining away from Liverpool,Manchester and the surrounding region and towards London.

Research Institute of Applied Economics at the University of Barcelona has made a study of existing high speed rail networks in Japan, France, Germany, Spain and Italy. Their findings should cause policy makers here in the UK to sit up and take notice.

The study suggested that smaller cities linked to larger cities by high speed rail lines sometimes suffered from a negative agglomeration effect. This can take several forms. For example, while there is evidence that a high speed rail link from a capital city such as London to a regional city will increase the number of visitors to the smaller city, fewer of those visitors will stay the night.

"Train passengers staying at least one night at their destination fell from 74% to 46%"

(Research Institute of Applied Economics, University of Barcelona).

What impact would this have on our region's vital tourist industry, particularly the hotel and restaurant trade?

The report is very clear about the risks to smaller cities such as Liverpool,Birmingham etc. when linked to a larger city such as London by a high speed rail route:

"It is consistently reported that HSR does not generate any new activities nor does it attract new firms and investment, but rather it helps to consolidate and promote on-going processes as well as to facilitate intra-organizational journeys for those firms and institutions for whom mobility is essential.

"In fact, for regions and cities whose economic conditions compare unfavorably with those of their neighbors, a connection to the HST line may even result in economic activities being drained away and an overall negative impact (Givoni, 2006; Van den Berg and Pol 1998; Thompson 1995). Medium size cities may well be the ones to suffer most from the economic attraction of the more dynamic, bigger cities. Indeed, Haynes (1997) points out that growth is sometimes at the expense of other centers of concentration. Several reports describe the centralization of activities in big nodes, especially in the services sector."

(Research Institute of Applied Economics, University of Barcelona).

The report's conclusion has this very clear and very sobering warning:

"Finally, the economic impacts of HSR are somewhat limited. The largest cities in the network might receive limited gains, but this is not the case for intermediate cities, which might see economic activities being drained away and suffer an overall negative impact."

(High Speed Rail Report,Research Institute of Applied Economics, University of Barcelona).

So here in the North West , and particularly Liverpool, we need to look very carefully at the potential negative impact that HS2 could have on our regional economy.

[Martin S]

This is a debate that really needs to take place on the Transport and Infrastructure thread as it is not a specifically Liverpool issue.

There is an argument for saying that faster links between cities will be at the expense of the economically weaker city but are we really saying that should Manchester get a direct captive link to London and Liverpool get an indirect much slower link that Liverpool will prosper and Manchester stagnate? Remember that Manchester already has a faster and more frequent high speed train link to London than Liverpool plus comprehensive air services to Heathrow and that doesn't seem to have harmed them does it?

As in the case of the LGV (Ligne a Grand Vitesse) network in France, the purpose of HS2 is not just to have high speed links to the capital but also to add capacity to the rail network. The present West Coast Route was completed in 1837, the same year that Queen Victoria came to the throne, and despite the extensive upgrade carried out in the last decade, will soon approach capacity.

Whilst the great shortening of journey times will inevitably generate more traffic, the great potential is for modal shift from cars and air transport to more environmentally sustainable rail transport - but that is a subject in itself.

[golden66]

Martin S your mindset is London led. You unfortunately dismiss any evidence thrown at you that casts a dark shadow on the economic impact of HS rail to the regions.Your standards and expectations for Liverpool are depressingly low if you think the city region should just be content with catching up with Manchester. Liverpool needs to think big and act big or it is nothing, I really despair reading your posts.

The relative prosperity of both Manchester and Liverpool has declined as London as improved its connectivity to them. This is because we only have the one supremely dominant economic pull economy in the UK. Manchester has benefitted in recent times because of its proximity to its airport and the London agenda to promote Manchester as the regional capital. However any small economic pull that Manchester currently enjoys from its proximity to its airport will be short lived once the airport as an HS rail link to London. So the answer to your point is that both Liverpool and Manchester will economically stagnate even further once HS2 is up and running but Manchester's rate of economic decline will be greater than Liverpool's.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by golden66

You lot need to do your research:

There is growing evidence from studies of existing high speed rail services in other countries that, far from pushing economic growth out from the centre to the regions, high speed rail networks can have the opposite effect. They can suck economic activity from the regions in towards the centre. There is a real danger of economic growth draining away from Liverpool,Manchester and the surrounding region and towards London.

Research Institute of Applied Economics at the University of Barcelona has made a study of existing high speed rail networks in Japan, France, Germany, Spain and Italy. Their findings should cause policy makers here in the UK to sit up and take notice.

The study suggested that smaller cities linked to larger cities by high speed rail lines sometimes suffered from a negative agglomeration effect. This can take several forms. For example, while there is evidence that a high speed rail link from a capital city such as London to a regional city will increase the number of visitors to the smaller city, fewer of those visitors will stay the night.

"Train passengers staying at least one night at their destination fell from 74% to 46%"

(Research Institute of Applied Economics, University of Barcelona).

What impact would this have on our region's vital tourist industry, particularly the hotel and restaurant trade?

The report is very clear about the risks to smaller cities such as Liverpool,Birmingham etc. when linked to a larger city such as London by a high speed rail route:

"It is consistently reported that HSR does not generate any new activities nor does it attract new firms and investment, but rather it helps to consolidate and promote on-going processes as well as to facilitate intra-organizational journeys for those firms and institutions for whom mobility is essential.

"In fact, for regions and cities whose economic conditions compare unfavorably with those of their neighbors, a connection to the HST line may even result in economic activities being drained away and an overall negative impact (Givoni, 2006; Van den Berg and Pol 1998; Thompson 1995). Medium size cities may well be the ones to suffer most from the economic attraction of the more dynamic, bigger cities. Indeed, Haynes (1997) points out that growth is sometimes at the expense of other centers of concentration. Several reports describe the centralization of activities in big nodes, especially in the services sector."

(Research Institute of Applied Economics, University of Barcelona).

The report's conclusion has this very clear and very sobering warning:

"Finally, the economic impacts of HSR are somewhat limited. The largest cities in the network might receive limited gains, but this is not the case for intermediate cities, which might see economic activities being drained away and suffer an overall negative impact."

(High Speed Rail Report,Research Institute of Applied Economics, University of Barcelona).

So here in the North West , and particularly Liverpool, we need to look very carefully at the potential negative impact that HS2 could have on our regional economy.

'The largest cities might have limited gains (you said a HSR link would finish Manchester off) but this is not the case for intermediate cities, which MIGHT see economic activties being drained away and suffer an overall negative impact" that applies to cities ON the line, i would assume the negative effect would be even more deleterious to cities like Liverpool which won't be on it.

You have to treat statistics with a degree of circumspection depending on who has complied them and for what reason. The figures for overnight stays and total visits: A fall for overnight stays from 74% to 46% , no figure is given for the total increase but just say it was 50% and it went up from 1m to 1.5m,46% of 1.5m is 690.000 overnight stays to 740,000. Even given a much lower increase of visitors any potential fall in revenues from overnight stays would probably be offset by the the extra spend from the daytripper.

[OriK]

I think that it's too simplistic to attribute those kind of economical advantages and disadvantages of a HST connection only to the connection itself as there are a lot of factors that influence in the success or failure...

I live near a small city in Spain well connected to a much bigger nearby city by road (bus: ~75mins, car: ~50mins) and HST (25 mins) formerly there was a conventional train... when they opened the new connection the train traffic busted from few thousands of travelers per year to some million of travelers per year... the tourism increased a lot but as you stated... not much of those tourist stayed at night in the city (anyway it wasn't that common before the HST so it wasn't a huge change)... at the end the main changes are that if a person in the smaller city gets a job in the bigger one... it won't move to the bigger city... there are more tourists and the mobility improved a lot...

But this is the case of this city as in each Spanish city with AVE the case has been different but they mostly say that the balance is very positive.

[design_man]

Originally Posted by OriK

I think that it's too simplistic to attribute those kind of economical advantages and disadvantages of a HST connection only to the connection itself as there are a lot of factors that influence in the success or failure...

I live near a small city in Spain well connected to a much bigger nearby city by road (bus: ~75mins, car: ~50mins) and HST (25 mins) formerly there was a conventional train... when they opened the new connection the train traffic busted from few thousands of travelers per year to some million of travelers per year... the tourism increased a lot but as you stated... not much of those tourist stayed at night in the city (anyway it wasn't that common before the HST so it wasn't a huge change)... at the end the main changes are that if a person in the smaller city gets a job in the bigger one... it won't move to the bigger city... there are more tourists and the mobility improved a lot...

But this is the case of this city as in each Spanish city with AVE the case has been different but they mostly say that the balance is very positive.

Interesting post. Almost as important as speeds and capacity will be prices.....HS2 might make Liverpool or Manchester technically commutable to/from London, but if the fares are high it won't work in that way. I'm aware of people now who go up the night before and stay overnight in some northern cities because it's cheaper than getting an early train up from London - so the speed doesn't really make that much difference if it still works out cheaper to get an off-peak train with overnight stay.

Liverpool central hotels are relatively cheap during the week, and good for business users - it's at the weekend when the prices are steep.

Those old enough to remember the debates about the Channel Tunnel will recall that some analysts claimed London would lose out to Paris, and that London's tourism and business would drain away to Paris.......utter rubbish!

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by OriK

I think that it's too simplistic to attribute those kind of economical advantages and disadvantages of a HST connection only to the connection itself as there are a lot of factors that influence in the success or failure...

I live near a small city in Spain well connected to a much bigger nearby city by road (bus: ~75mins, car: ~50mins) and HST (25 mins) formerly there was a conventional train... when they opened the new connection the train traffic busted from few thousands of travelers per year to some million of travelers per year... the tourism increased a lot but as you stated... not much of those tourist stayed at night in the city (anyway it wasn't that common before the HST so it wasn't a huge change)... at the end the main changes are that if a person in the smaller city gets a job in the bigger one... it won't move to the bigger city... there are more tourists and the mobility improved a lot...

But this is the case of this city as in each Spanish city with AVE the case has been different but they mostly say that the balance is very positive.

I'm not sure whether that was meant as a response to my post or Golden 66 but appears to confirm the point I was making, although your observations are about the economic impact within a city region not competing cities within commuting distance.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by golden66

The relative prosperity of both Manchester and Liverpool has declined as London as improved its connectivity to them.

Manchester has benefitted in recent times because of its proximity to its airport ......

But doesn't Manchester's connectivity to London improve because of its proximity to its airport?

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

'The largest cities might have limited gains (you said a HSR link would finish Manchester off) but this is not the case for intermediate cities, which MIGHT see economic activties being drained away and suffer an overall negative impact" that applies to cities ON the line, i would assume the negative effect would be even more deleterious to cities like Liverpool which won't be on it.

You have to treat statistics with a degree of circumspection depending on who has complied them and for what reason. The figures for overnight stays and total visits: A fall for overnight stays from 74% to 46% , no figure is given for the total increase but just say it was 50% and it went up from 1m to 1.5m,46% of 1.5m is 920,00 overnight stays to 780,000. Even given a much lower increase of visitors any potential fall in revenues from overnight stays would probably be offset by the the extra spend from the daytripper.

The economic argument for HS2 is a complex one and there are definitely disbenefits as well as benefits and there will be a lot of manipulation of statistics to prove an argument one way or the other.

I tend to see this though as a logical development in transport that will happen whether we like it or not and that, therefore, Liverpool should aim to have the greatest possible benefit from it.

You could argue that the development of passenger aircraft was a bad thing for Liverpool as it allowed inland cities to have passenger services to places that formally could only be accessed by sea. However, it was a development in transport that could not be resisted and, so, the city needed to make the best of it that it could.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by OriK

I think that it's too simplistic to attribute those kind of economical advantages and disadvantages of a HST connection only to the connection itself as there are a lot of factors that influence in the success or failure...

I live near a small city in Spain well connected to a much bigger nearby city by road (bus: ~75mins, car: ~50mins) and HST (25 mins) formerly there was a conventional train... when they opened the new connection the train traffic busted from few thousands of travelers per year to some million of travelers per year... the tourism increased a lot but as you stated... not much of those tourist stayed at night in the city (anyway it wasn't that common before the HST so it wasn't a huge change)... at the end the main changes are that if a person in the smaller city gets a job in the bigger one... it won't move to the bigger city... there are more tourists and the mobility improved a lot...

But this is the case of this city as in each Spanish city with AVE the case has been different but they mostly say that the balance is very positive.

Interesting comment, Orik. I just read an anti-HS2 article in the December issue of Modern Railways. The author made the point that Spain is a country that is very well connected by high speed trains but whose economic performance in recent years has been pretty poor - therefore high speed trains do not lead to economic prosperity.

I suppose you could also argue that drinking sangria doesn't lead to economic prosperity as we don't know how properous or otherwise Spain would be if it didn't have high speed trains. However, France has had high speed rail since the early 80s and yet is continuing to develop its network so some economic advantage must be present.