How Camden Market trumps the North...

Sir David Higgins, the man tasked with the delivery of High Speed 2, released his first report into the vital yet sadly controversial project this week. (HS2 plus, DofT, 2014)

While much of the associated headlines have lauded his proposals to extend Phase 1 up to Crewe as offering proof of the government’s commitment to the North (HS2 benefits to north could be delivered six years earlier, says Sir David Higgins, Guardian 17th March), the largely ignored decision to scrap the proposed link between the new line and the existing High speed 1, immediately endorsed by the Transport secretary Patrick McLaughlin is of far greater consequence and illustrative of an increasing London centric government (and media’s) ambivalence towards anything outside of the M25.

Why is this connection so Important?

A link between High speed 2 and High speed 1 between Euston and St Pancras Stations would have provided the potential to run direct trains from the Northern Cities to Mainland Europe directly connecting these cities into a huge market. To scrap the link ensures that all trains from Mainland Europe will go direct into London, re-enforcing the capitals dominance over the regions and effectively relegating High Speed 2 into a branch line.  

So why is it on the lIne?

Camden council have been at war with the Government over the link since the proposals were first announced The route itself as is shown in the maps below will have involved widening the existing railway link between the two stations, Camden council believe the process of construction would have resulted in ‘a decade of disruption’, destroying the famous tat market and making the area unattractive to tourists. A single look at plans a (alongside a Google earth image for comparison) illustrates much of the new track will be on the existing and vacant viaduct and where it isn’t will involve a very slight widening of the existing viaduct.

Illustrating a section of the proposed route through Camden 

 It has also been argued by the likes of Sir David and the Transport Secretary that there is little demand for direct services between the likes of Manchester and Paris to justify the cost of the link, yet without the link in place it is difficult to assess the demand. It has to be remembered that Manchester and Leeds will not be connected to the network until 2030 at the earliest so we are talking many years into the future. To write of these cities now shows a worrying lack of foresight especially as London overheats.

How much will this Link have cost?

The link would have cost an estimated £700 million, from an overall budget of, £42.6b a paltry saving especially when one considers the potential economic boost such a link would have provided to the North of England.

How much will it cost to rebuild Euston Station?

Sir David also recommended that Euston Station be redeveloped at a staggering cost of £1.2 billion, something also immediately endorsed by the Transport Secretary who said

‘It is a significant opportunity to maximise the economic potential of the line and regenerate a site that has been neglected. It is also a significant opportunity to generate private sector investment that can reduce the overall burden on the taxpayer’

If he feels the area around Euston is in urgent need of regeneration he quite obviously has never left zones 1 and 2.

The ironic and sad fact of this is that the £700 million invested into the link will have had a much greater long term economic return than the £1.2 billion to spruce up Euston Station, while based upon evidence elsewhere in both the UK and on Mainland Europe the presence of the High speed rail station in itself will have attracted substantial private investment into the area anyway.

So what can we conclude from all this?

Camden already has High Speed 1 on its doorstep, this enables it to attract new investment and substantial numbers of tourists as well as enabling its well healed and connected residents (of which includes Stanley; Dad of Boris and prominent anti High Speed 2 campaigner who recently was quoted as saying all it will do is enable Young female jihadists to get down from Birmingham 20 minutes quicker) to get a train to Paris or Brussels quickly and efficiently.

That the Transport Secretary is prepared to let the economic future of Camden Flea Market trump the likes of Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham and in turn effectively isolate the rest of the country from other European cities for the benefit of a few well influenced North London luvvies says all that needs to be said about the stranglehold London has upon the rest of the country. 

Why Good Public Transport Systems Matter

Model Train: About as far as Transport improvements outside of London go in the UK 

Following the short sighted decision in Edinburgh to substantially shorten the cities under construction Tram line: 


Linking Social exclusion and public transport: Why good public systems matter


Transport is one of several barriers inhibiting access to employment…employers were not employing people from certain places because transport links were known to be inadequate’’ and unreliable’ (DOT 2000: 50)

It is generally assumed that everyone owns or has access to a car, the truth is somewhat different, according to Poverty.org.uk, in 2010, 25% of men and 40% of women either lacked a car in their household or do not having a driving license. This makes the provision of public transport essential for many people in enabling them to form social networks outside of the community in which they live, as well as providing access to education, retail, heath, employment and leisure facilities. 


The design of our cities sadly makes life difficult for those without access to private transport, low density suburban development and a shift of shopping, leisure and offices to the edge of settlements has created dispersed cities. At the same time public transport networks have failed to adapt to modern land-use patterns, leading to declines in usage and in turn reduced frequencies. 


It is now 10 yeas since PPG 13 was published, which was the first major policy document to specifically link social exclusion and pubic transport, stating...

A key planning objective is to ensure that jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking, and cycling. This is important for all, but especially for those who do not have regular use of a car, and to promote social inclusion. (PPG13, 2001: 9) 

Yet the issue is still rarely touched upon and large scale public transport investments outside of London have proved rare and in the case of the proposed light rail networks in Leeds and Liverpool axed. While cycling which has the potential to provide a low cost transport (and obesity) solution is still to be fully embraced,  a result of a long term lack of any serious investment in cycle networks by local authorities. 


Further inefficiencies can be leveled at the '1998 UK bus competition act' which prevents bus operators agreeing timetables and routes, arguably preventing fully connected transport networks and makes life difficult for people needing to change routes, creating the disintegrated networks many people see today. 


Whether Edinburgh should have decided to invest in light rail is a issue many residents of the city have being asking for along time. 


The main advantage of light rail over busses and heavy rail, is its ability to enable permanent new public transport routes through the middle of urban areas, with an ability to carry passengers faster, and more reliably than the pre-mentioned alternatives while allowing high frequency stops. 


Th issue of permanence is particularly important, as the service cannot be cut at a moments notice, inspiring confidence in a location and presenting a forward thinking and modern city. Creating a favorable impression to visitors but also inspiring residents and it is inevitable new developments and businesses will be attracted alongside light rail lines. 


At the same time, the initial outlay of light-rail is expensive and once built it is not cheap to run,  monetary costs which are often passed onto the rider itself at social cost. 


Edinburgh like other British cities needs a long term and  targeted public transport plan that is supported by those in government. Light rail wasn't and It is particularly sad that the part of the route cut linked Leith one of Edinburgh's most deprived districts to the city centre and with further connections, beyond; which would have opened up a huge number of potential opportunities for residents.


The UK government is cutting back on many areas of expenditure, something that I support in principle. But this shouldn't come at the cost of developing social inclusion, something which can only lead to helping its primary aim of economic growth.  


The recent riots seen across the UK were the result of a socially excluded element of our society, who felt dissatisfied with there communities enough to smash then up. Integrated transport systems can go some way to reconnecting these neighborhoods back into the city.

Construction of Underground rail in Rotterdam (Netherlands); here a longer term view is taken