Claire Smith, Editor, NCE
High speed rail is seen as the solution to the problem of decarbonising transport. It provides a fast and efficient alternative to air travel, not just domestically but for international travel too. The cross-border potential is clear from our cover story this month which looks at the Rail Baltica project which stretches 870km across three nations.
The project is ambitious, but the work is forging ahead with 150 contracts let so far for the £5bn scheme which connects Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The main construction phase is expected to start later
this year.
The project appears to have easily gained both political and public support, mainly because its realisation has been an ambition for the countries since they split from the Soviet Union in 1991. It provides a new transport link, so the business case is very clear as long as the construction costs can be met and controlled.
With this issue’s focus on rail, our Overview feature looks at high speed rail projects around the world, including the UK’s High Speed 2 (HS2) project.
The words that jumped out from the text about HS2 when proofing the pages is that the scheme is “drawing attention internationally”. I know the phrase here relates to the length of the line – someone once described it to me as a series of megaprojects rather than just a single megaproject – and the line speed. While Rail Baltica is aiming to run passenger services at 240km/h, HS2 is targeting line speeds of 360km/h and it is the scale and speed which are creating the global interest.
Unfortunately, HS2 is also “drawing attention internationally” because of the recent decision to suspend parts of the scheme. In recent weeks, there has also been news that the Euston terminus might be scaled back to just seven platforms. Originally it was planned to have 11, then that was scaled back to 10 and the latest proposals for seven have been branded as “not fit for the future” by rail industry experts.
Being more proactive and strategic about communicating what we do will change some of the narrative around our work and why infrastructure investment is needed
But where HS2 also fails compared to its Baltic counterpart is in the public’s understanding of the need for the project. There are already railway lines between London and Birmingham, as well as between Manchester and Leeds. HS2 does not have the blank canvas of Rail Baltica.
I have always said that using reduced journey times for the hard sell on HS2 meant that many missed the point of the project. To me it is about capacity – freeing up the existing network for stopping and freight services – and the reliability that comes from modern engineering instead of Victorian infrastructure. The recent decisions to delay and scale back the work takes us even further from clearly communicating the project’s ambition to the public.
In a world with Twitter/X, LinkedIn and other social media platforms, everyone is now a communicator. But that does not mean that the messages about our work to the public have become any clearer.
Often it is now more crowded rather than louder and the lack of clear communication strategy presents a risk for our sector, something this month’s Opinion article addresses.
Whether you are working on HS2 or any other project, I would urge you to read this month’s Opinion, as too often communication from our industry to the public tends to be in response to things going wrong. Being more proactive and strategic about communicating what we do will change some of the narrative around our work and why infrastructure investment is needed. It will also help highlight our critical role in delivering on net zero. At a project level, gaining public support is a real positive and, at an industry level, improving our reputation must surely also help when it comes to skills and recruitment.
Like what you’ve read? To receive New Civil Engineer’s daily and weekly newsletters click here.
Editor’s Comment | Clearly communicating the business case is key | New Civil Engineer
[ad_1]
Claire Smith, Editor, NCE
High speed rail is seen as the solution to the problem of decarbonising transport. It provides a fast and efficient alternative to air travel, not just domestically but for international travel too. The cross-border potential is clear from our cover story this month which looks at the Rail Baltica project which stretches 870km across three nations.
The project is ambitious, but the work is forging ahead with 150 contracts let so far for the £5bn scheme which connects Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The main construction phase is expected to start later
this year.
The project appears to have easily gained both political and public support, mainly because its realisation has been an ambition for the countries since they split from the Soviet Union in 1991. It provides a new transport link, so the business case is very clear as long as the construction costs can be met and controlled.
With this issue’s focus on rail, our Overview feature looks at high speed rail projects around the world, including the UK’s High Speed 2 (HS2) project.
The words that jumped out from the text about HS2 when proofing the pages is that the scheme is “drawing attention internationally”. I know the phrase here relates to the length of the line – someone once described it to me as a series of megaprojects rather than just a single megaproject – and the line speed. While Rail Baltica is aiming to run passenger services at 240km/h, HS2 is targeting line speeds of 360km/h and it is the scale and speed which are creating the global interest.
Unfortunately, HS2 is also “drawing attention internationally” because of the recent decision to suspend parts of the scheme. In recent weeks, there has also been news that the Euston terminus might be scaled back to just seven platforms. Originally it was planned to have 11, then that was scaled back to 10 and the latest proposals for seven have been branded as “not fit for the future” by rail industry experts.
But where HS2 also fails compared to its Baltic counterpart is in the public’s understanding of the need for the project. There are already railway lines between London and Birmingham, as well as between Manchester and Leeds. HS2 does not have the blank canvas of Rail Baltica.
I have always said that using reduced journey times for the hard sell on HS2 meant that many missed the point of the project. To me it is about capacity – freeing up the existing network for stopping and freight services – and the reliability that comes from modern engineering instead of Victorian infrastructure. The recent decisions to delay and scale back the work takes us even further from clearly communicating the project’s ambition to the public.
In a world with Twitter/X, LinkedIn and other social media platforms, everyone is now a communicator. But that does not mean that the messages about our work to the public have become any clearer.
Often it is now more crowded rather than louder and the lack of clear communication strategy presents a risk for our sector, something this month’s Opinion article addresses.
Whether you are working on HS2 or any other project, I would urge you to read this month’s Opinion, as too often communication from our industry to the public tends to be in response to things going wrong. Being more proactive and strategic about communicating what we do will change some of the narrative around our work and why infrastructure investment is needed. It will also help highlight our critical role in delivering on net zero. At a project level, gaining public support is a real positive and, at an industry level, improving our reputation must surely also help when it comes to skills and recruitment.
Like what you’ve read? To receive New Civil Engineer’s daily and weekly newsletters click here.
[ad_2]
Source link