MINISTERS have signalled support for plans for a `Crossrail of the North' which will slash rail journey times between Manchester and Leeds to just 25 minutes.
Transport Minister Lord Adonis has asked a company to draw up proposals for extending high-speed services into Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, the North East, and Scotland.
Originally, the company, High Speed 2 (HS2), was created to develop the case for high-speed trains services between London and Scotland and from the capital to Birmingham.
On Monday, the M.E.N revealed how 200mph trains would run on high-speed tracks cutting through the Pennines would drastically reduce the journey time.
We told how the region's MPs had apparently met Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon to lobby for more cash and that the matter would be raised in Parliament by Manchester Blackley MP Graham Stringer.
Lord Adonis said: "If the regions share my view of the benefits high-speed rail will bring then they need to help HS2 understand the business case for bringing high speed services to their communities."
Beverley Hughes, Stretford and Urmston MP, and regional minister for the North West, said: "The benefits high-speed rail could bring to our region should not be underestimated."
North West MPs have been frustrated at regional inequalities in transport - especially the £6bn being spent on the Crossrail scheme to link east and west London.
HS2 will report by the end of the year with a proposed route from London to the West Midlands. Discussions about the extension to the north will follow and the Greater Manchester link could be ready in just over a decade.
Tweet
Ministers back 200mph rail link
March 11, 2009
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Kurt Stephens (11/03/2009 at 07:36)
Chris R, Irlam (11/03/2009 at 08:29)
Bean B4, manchester (11/03/2009 at 08:49)
Savage Mandarin, Manchester (11/03/2009 at 08:57)
High Speed 2 was set up recently by Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon - so the whole enterprise stays "in the family". Does anybody really think that the South-East is going to shell out for us woollybacks up here - especially when they've got the Olympics to pay for. Still doubtful? Read the last sentence of the article again....
Frostee, Oldham (11/03/2009 at 09:40)
Bejjy ex Salford now Malta, Malta (11/03/2009 at 09:44)
Kurt Stephens (11/03/2009 at 09:45)
As a nation we spend the least of all the developed countries in the world of the proportion of our transport budget on public transport relative to roads, every other country in the world spends a much higher proportion of their transport budget on public transport rather than roads.
The problem in this country is not, as you would suggest Bean B4 that the money should be diverted from public transport, but rather the entire country does not place enough importance in improving our transport infrastructure.
Cllr Ken Hulme, Delph (11/03/2009 at 09:55)
Why on earth wasn't this done as part of an integrated transport plan for the North rather than a piecemeal 'feasibility study' years ago.
Sounds like a bit of empty gesture politics with no likelihood of any action. Another wasted opportunity.
Bean B4, manchester (11/03/2009 at 09:56)
The way ahead for transport is to improve roads, build cheap cars and find an alternative fuel for the internal combustion engine.
Sorry, but the vast najority do not want to be herded about on public transport to destination nearly convenient for them. They want to get in a car and drive. Smell the coffee!
Albert Bino (11/03/2009 at 10:21)
dessie, manchester (11/03/2009 at 10:30)
Al Capone of Atherton, Atherton (11/03/2009 at 10:35)
Munkey Boy, Audenshaw (11/03/2009 at 10:51)
The car is very efficient for low demanded, dispersed travel, but on high demand inter-city travel, it's not the answer you're looking for.
Kurt Stephens (11/03/2009 at 11:06)
If you cannot see the link between improved transport provision to cities (be it road or public transport) and the improved prosperity and quality of live in that city then I think you are very blinkered.
All our transport needs will never be met by one single mode of transport, we need a mix of better road infrastructure and much better public transport provision, otherwise the cities in the UK will not achieve their true potential, and will always be hampered compared to their European competitors that achieve such investment in thei transport infrastructure.
It is no surprise that Obama is looking at some serious investment in rail as well as road as a way of improving the US economy, even the most right wing governments see the link between improved transport provision and improved life quality.
Kurt Stephens (11/03/2009 at 11:07)
We would not ONLY be linked to Leeds, but the continent, the capitals and several other UK provinsial cities.
Bean B4, manchester (11/03/2009 at 12:04)
Walk to bus stop. Wait 25 minutes in rain, get on bus, stand up on the journey, walk in rain to Victoria, get on train (if it arrives), do journey (possibly), walk to work in rain.
Sorry, you can stick public transport. I can afford to use the car and I shall. Thank goodness, you and loomies didn't get your way over the con tax
Princess_Pam, Crumpsall (11/03/2009 at 13:02)
Al Capone of Atherton, Atherton (11/03/2009 at 13:18)
The Continent?! Birmingham?! London?! Scotland? The North East?! Leeds?!!!! OMG. It gets worse.
Paul, South Manchester (11/03/2009 at 13:31)
I am a contractor and work in all of the northern cities - I would not consider car commuting between leeds and manchester as I could not afford to spend the 2+ hours that it would take each way during peak hours.
I agree that the current Government will be out of power in less than a year - however it is Cameron who started this discussion about the high speed rail link and labour as usual follow. - so this will be Tory policy.
To be honest, if Labour were to win the next election then I am sure that Brown would think of some other scheme in London to do so he could yet again shelve his promises to the north of England. I have more confidence in the Tories delivering improvements to the North.
hulme hatter, M15 (11/03/2009 at 13:41)
But, although improving journey times and improving connectivity by rail (by FAR the most efficient way of transporting a large number of people between cities) is a good thing, I would question whether this is the absolute best way of spending any money for transport that might be on offer for the region. Piccadilly - Leeds currently takes about 50 minutes, is it worth spending this much money on reducing that to 25? Maybe so, maybe not....
Munkey Boy, Audenshaw (11/03/2009 at 14:25)
Walk to bus stop. Wait 25 minutes in rain, get on bus, stand up on the journey, walk in rain to Victoria, get on train (if it arrives), do journey (possibly), walk to work in rain."
Why not drive to your nearest train station (or one that offers park & ride facilities?) Or if you insist on getting the bus to the train, why not read the timetable so you don't have to wait? And the point in investing in the train infrastructure is that it would just about guarantee your train arriving, and far more likely to be on time.
"Sorry, you can stick public transport. I can afford to use the car and I shall. Thank goodness, you and loomies didn't get your way over the con tax"
You make no sense Bean, you seem to spite the improvement to prove some loony point rather than consider the logical option. It's not car *or* public transport we should consider, it's car *and* public transport. Neither car or PT is better at all journeys than the other.
Bean B4, manchester (11/03/2009 at 14:35)
Munkey Boy, Audenshaw (11/03/2009 at 15:25)
Orb, Rochdale (11/03/2009 at 15:29)
HOWEVER, given that this country is essentially bankrupt and tax revenues are going to be through the floor as unemployment goes through the roof and businesses relocate somewhere not bankrupt or go bust, just how is this going to be paid for?
Hindsight (11/03/2009 at 15:59)