Campaign grows to switch the building of HS2 station to Sheffield city

[E-Man Groovin 27]

And not-so-major cities either. Perpignan is on the Paris-Barcelona TGV route; TGVs stop at the city-centre railway station.

 

Perpignan has a similar population to Rotherham, though it is the capital city of the Pyrénées-Orientales department.

 

I've never stopped in Perpignan but I've passed it may times. I hear that it's quite nice.

 

And it's not only France. In November I was in Sweden and travelled from Copenhagen to Malmo to Gothenberg to Stockholm and to Sundsvall on consecutive days. All the meetings were in the city centres as was my accommodation. Thankfully the train stations in each of these cities were in the centres making things a whole lot more pleasant in terms of a) choice of accommodation, b) availability of meeting locations and c) businesses able to attend.

 

The only time I had to take a shuttle was to get to Stockholm airport on my way home.

[AndrewC 307]

Surely the main question is one that's probably been asked many times, but, one about connections. Using London as an example, you arrive at a hub station and then almost everyone gets onwards transport, tube or bus, to their actual destination. If we consider the 'Sheffield region' to be London, then nothing is very different in the proposal of putting the HS2 station at Meadowhall, where onwards connections are far easier than at Victoria. I cannot understand the choice of Victoria in anyway. I'd support it if it was to call at the current Sheffield Station as then connections for travellers not staying in the city centre would be as easy as from Meadowhall, but adding in a 15 min transfer between Victoria and Sheffield just makes it pointless. It'd be quicker to get a train connection from Meadowhall into the centre than to walk there from Victoria.

 

For me, it's got to be directly into Sheffield station or to Meadowhall. The Victoria option is just baffling.

 

Why would you walk between Victoria and Midland - you get the new tram connection, or even just walk to the new interchange to the east of Victoria where it's likely a lot of local servcies would be connected to.

[E-Man Groovin 27]

I'd also like to respond to two posters whose views and arguments I find to be well-considered on the whole but on this topic are on the other side of the debate to me.

 

The issue that Sheffield people should consider is whether the connectivity of a station at Meadowhall* is topped by a tight Victoria site which is still not in the city centre.

 

Knowledgeable and well-argued as always Annie, but I think something else needs to be considered here. Being a native of the capital and having lived in a number of other cities, I'd like to add something to this idea.

 

Forgetting about the wider SY region for a moment - I think we all agree that Sheffield could do with development. For Sheffield to punch at its weight that development needs to be about more than just a new building here or there or tarting up a street.

 

Sheffielders need to be imaginative about what could be achieved - AndrewC had it right a few pages back. If the goal is really the regeneration of the city, areas such as the Victoria site should be a target for development such that it becomes another vibrant central part of the city.

 

If you don't understand what I'm saying consider this. When I was growing up in London, Docklands was a derelict scary part of East London, now it's an important part of what constitutes the city. In Manchester Salford Quays was run down, now it's the area in which media organisations cluster, I could talk about Albert Docks in Liverpool or Silicon Roundabout (again) in London.

 

Successful cities transform and grow. Today's rough area (e.g. Notting Hill in the 1960s) is tomorrow's vibrant and successful quarter.

 

Surely the main question is one that's probably been asked many times, but, one about connections. Using London as an example, you arrive at a hub station and then almost everyone gets onwards transport, tube or bus, to their actual destination. If we consider the 'Sheffield region' to be London, then nothing is very different in the proposal of putting the HS2 station at Meadowhall, where onwards connections are far easier than at Victoria.

 

I understand the point you make. It's a good and a compelling one. Naturally I'm going to debate it though!

 

The reality is that each of the London hubs is surrounded by the resources a business traveller would need - multiple quality hotels, great restaurants, meeting rooms, conference centres, independent coffee houses, art galleries and entertainment - within walking distance. It's not like you arrive at Paddington or Waterloo and there's nothing much there until you get to Soho - walk out of the station and there are theatres, brilliant restaurants and all manner of attractions. That's what sells a city in my view!

 

I cannot understand the choice of Victoria in anyway. I'd support it if it was to call at the current Sheffield Station as then connections for travellers not staying in the city centre would be as easy as from Meadowhall, but adding in a 15 min transfer between Victoria and Sheffield just makes it pointless. It'd be quicker to get a train connection from Meadowhall into the centre than to walk there from Victoria.

 

See the point I made above about the need for continual evolution of the what constitutes the city centre.

 

What do you think? Any merit to these points?

[Chez2 10]

I'd also like to respond to two posters whose views and arguments I find to be well-considered on the whole but on this topic are on the other side of the debate to me.

 

 

 

Knowledgeable and well-argued as always Annie, but I think something else needs to be considered here. Being a native of the capital and having lived in a number of other cities, I'd like to add something to this idea.

 

Forgetting about the wider SY region for a moment - I think we all agree that Sheffield could do with development. For Sheffield to punch at its weight that development needs to be about more than just a new building here or there or tarting up a street.

 

Sheffielders need to be imaginative about what could be achieved - AndrewC had it right a few pages back. If the goal is really the regeneration of the city, areas such as the Victoria site should be a target for development such that it becomes another vibrant central part of the city.

 

If you don't understand what I'm saying consider this. When I was growing up in London, Docklands was a derelict scary part of East London, now it's an important part of what constitutes the city. In Manchester Salford Quays was run down, now it's the area in which media organisations cluster, I could talk about Albert Docks in Liverpool or Silicon Roundabout (again) in London.

 

Successful cities transform and grow. Today's rough area (e.g. Notting Hill in the 1960s) is tomorrow's vibrant and successful quarter.

 

 

 

I understand the point you make. It's a good and a compelling one. Naturally I'm going to debate it though!

 

The reality is that each of the London hubs is surrounded by the resources a business traveller would need - multiple quality hotels, great restaurants, meeting rooms, conference centres, independent coffee houses, art galleries and entertainment - within walking distance. It's not like you arrive at Paddington or Waterloo and there's nothing much there until you get to Soho - walk out of the station and there are theatres, brilliant restaurants and all manner of attractions. That's what sells a city in my view!

 

 

 

See the point I made above about the need for continual evolution of the what constitutes the city centre.

 

What do you think? Any merit to these points?

 

You have answered your own question. It isn't about regenerating Sheffield city centre, its about the whole region. I used to love Sheffield city centre by day and night back in the 80s and early 90s. The changes that have been made since have driven me away. I'm not the only person that thinks this way. I much prefer shopping in other towns and cities, big and small. Its to do with the ideas of planners and designers misunderstanding what (some)shoppers, drivers and travellers needs and requirements.

 

You seem to be missing the point that a significant number of business travellers don't want or need to go into the city, any city. I have been involved with the manufacturing sector, many of which are located outside of city centres. A lot of new industrial areas are in an ideal location (in our region) to make use of the Meadowhall station without the need to go into the city at all. Look how Meadowhall station would link up with the M1 then on to the bypasses/link roads to the new industrial developments.

 

Don't you agree it would be better for the region as a whole to attract business to the area? We need 'easy' transport links for these new businesses. There is limited opportunity and space in the city centre but vast areas of brownfield sites on the outskirts.

[the fonz 10]

For me, it's got to be directly into Sheffield station or to Meadowhall. The Victoria option is just baffling.

 

The current station is pretty constrained, in the bottom of the valley as it is, look how the tram was squeezed in above it.

 

Victoria provides the space needed for new platforms and station.

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2015 at 14:21 ----------

 

It isn't about regenerating Sheffield city centre, its about the whole region.

 

Why do you think its called Sheffield City Region? Sheffield is the catalyst for improving the region. Where do you think the people living in Rotherham, Doncaster, and to a lesser extent Barnsley actually work? A quick look at the parkway in the mornings would suggested there are a lot of people working in the city centre are commuting in.

[mogwai84 10]

Even if you want to nit pick about the locations of various french stations, the bottom line is that we shouldn't be holding the TGV up as some gold-standard, it's losing money and completely underused. I want HS3 to be a success and personally I think in this country it'd be a hard thing to get wrong, but as the years pass we end up needing to overengineer and shoehorn solutions into established cities with complex topology/existing transport systems. We either look at majory re-modelling every major city to make it work, or we use out of centre locations in cities which aren't in the very big 5 or 6, and trust local councils to make the connections work.

[smiggs 10]

 

You seem to be missing the point that a significant number of business travellers don't want or need to go into the city, any city. I have been involved with the manufacturing sector, many of which are located outside of city centres. A lot of new industrial areas are in an ideal location (in our region) to make use of the Meadowhall station without the need to go into the city at all. Look how Meadowhall station would link up with the M1 then on to the bypasses/link roads to the new industrial developments.

 

Don't you agree it would be better for the region as a whole to attract business to the area? We need 'easy' transport links for these new businesses. There is limited opportunity and space in the city centre but vast areas of brownfield sites on the outskirts.

 

Do you have any figures as to the regeneration value of these other areas? The figures provided by Sheffield council suggest that the city centre provides more regeneration possibilities.

[whiteowl 54]

Apologies if this has been brought up already but can we just not have this and I can have my thousand pounds in tax back ? 20 mins shorter to London in a world of video conferencing and modern networked technology seems a bit of a waste to me.

[ECCOnoob 1,050]

If you ever have to deal with the shambles that is a meeting via video link (particularly one that involves more than 2-3 people) you would realise why this "networked" revolution is not all its cracked up to be.

 

People travel for many many other reasons than just to attend a meeting.

 

There are still lots of things that can't and shouldn't be done remotely.

 

BTW, you might want to look up how general taxation works. You don't just demand a refund for something you personally don't use. I don't have kids nor do I ever use libraries nor play sports. But I don't demand a refund against child tax credits, public libraries or sports facilities.

 

Face facts. Our railways are an embarrassment. Stuck in the 60s/70s with slow trains and crumbling infrastructure. Just getting HS2/HS3 will still only drag us 15-20 years behind some other country's rail systems. We cannot just dismiss every single major project with this moronic NIMBYism and then kick off about the country being behind others in the western world.

 

Sometimes you just have to take the punt and invest.

 

Just imagine if some of the great inventors and pioneers of the modern world tried to do something like that now with this modern day faux protesting and general pessimism. Imagine for example someone tried building the likes of a London Underground today. A rich foreigner suggests that we dig up masses of streets, tunnel underneath historic London buildings and create a train in a drain. They wouldn't even get to the end of their pitch before the papers mauled them and the NIMBYs screamed them out of town.

Edited December 24, 2015 by ECCOnoob

[LeMaquis 10]

20 mins shorter to London in a world of video conferencing and modern networked technology seems a bit of a waste to me.

 

HS2 is more about capacity than reduced travel time. Video conferencing isn't much use if you're going for a weekend break, football match, theatre trip, shopping, concert, etc.

[smiggs 10]

No business I've worked in uses video conferencing it's ridiculously expensive and cumbersome to maintain and use, often they had systems which they actually removed and didn't replace. Regardless we've lived in a connected society for a decade or two now and yet we're still making more rail journeys every year, time to invest in the infrastructure we actually use and rely on.

[tinfoilhat 11]

What just isn't true?

 

The French cities that I frequent (large ones comparable to Sheffield) have city centre stations. Obviously Paris does, but I spend a lot of time in Toulouse and Montpellier (fastest growing city in France BTW) - they also have city centre stations. As do Bordeaux, Marseille and Lyon. Any major French cities I've missed out?

 

I think not.

 

I'm not that informed on this subject but won't let that stop me making this point.

 

Build it and they will come. At one end of the scale we have heathrow with every major hotel you can think of (sometimes duplicated) with high class conference facilities galore. At the other end of the scale, and it's taken a decade, we have jct 29a of the M1. It's spent 20 years being old pit land but with the amount of building going on there is staggering - the area hasn't seen that sort of investment for years. Alright we're talking Starbucks and KFC but compared to what bolsover had it might as well be a Hilton!