Main Image : 

Published: 27 January, 2012
by PETER JONES

Euston, HS2 certainly has a problem now.

It’s much quicker from Old Oak, why are we being singled out?

Local people have been criticised in the media for sleep-walking into the HS2 trap without much of a fight.

We face the loss of communities, an estimated 40 per cent reduction in seats at peak time and 10 years of disruption as a multi-billion super station complex, almost 100 per cent bigger than the existing, is constructed and tunnels driven under large parts of north London.

Let us be parochial and look at the reasons that have been given as to why Euston has been singled out as the London “terminus” and people here as the unwilling hosts.  

It was recommended in November 2011 by an all-party parliamentary  committee that: “The government should reassess whether terminating at either Old Oak Common or another station on the Crossrail network might not be a more effective solution than having Euston as the terminating station”  

On the January 23 the following reasons were given by the government to say no: “The majority of passengers using HS2 would want to travel into central London.”

“If Old Oak Common was the terminating  London station passengers would have to change onto another train or mode of transport to continue into central London, creating a time penalty that would reduce the benefits of HS2 and cause inconvenience to the majority of passengers”

We say no one makes a trip to London to go to Euston.

Plus, according to HS2’s own analysis, almost all people who arrive at Euston then make an onward journey to their final destination.

We say look at journey times to key central London destinations from Old Oak as opposed to Euston and discover that, by a considerable margin, passengers arriving from Birmingham would reach most central London destinations more quickly by changing trains at Old Oak rather than Euston.  

For example – Bond Street would take 10 minutes from Old Oak Common but 17 minutes from Euston; and Westminster takes 15 mins from OOC and 21 minutes from Euston; even Canary Wharf is closer, in time terms to Old Oak, at 24 minutes as opposed to a massive 31 minutes from Euston.

Figures are available on our website – http://pan camdenhs2alliance.org

This means that not only does Old Oak create a time benefit but it would be far more convenient for the majority of passengers.

The Department for Transport response then goes on to say: “Euston was the best option for an HS2 terminus as it currently has a footprint wide enough to accommodate a number of high speed platforms, with minimal land take in the surrounding area”

If HS2 wish to run trains into Euston this can be done on existing modified infrastructure, without tunnels.  

The fallacy is that if something is big already it is of course natural to make it bigger. The term “minimal land take” is wrong. Several hundred homes will have to go.  

HS2 have not got a clue how much land take will actually be required.  

The reply goes on: “In addition, it is already well connected to London’s transport system and could support the wider regeneration of Euston and help support job creation around Euston.”

Mayor’s represen­tative Daniel Moylan says that “There is simply no space for this volume of additional passengers without having to close Euston Underground station on a daily basis”. Also Euston is not well connected.

HS2’s “Appraisal of sustainability” says that  most of the jobs would not be for local people.

Any regeneration would be secondary to the building of the mega station which will put an emphasis on maximising property development profit to finance the project. Once in a hybrid bill the people and their elected council would have no statutory input whatsoever.

The agenda and outcome would be determined by the holders of the hybrid bill.

The human, environmental, and economic cost at Euston would all be for an impractical solution. 

OOC is a huge and well connected brown-field site.

It has fantastic connectivity.

The concept of a terminus is  Victorian. Modern solutions seek seamless, integrated, transport hubs. Old Oak Common can fulfil this.

Euston cannot.

The Park Royal area will provide real jobs for Londoners.

Euston’s redevelopment should be determined by the people who live in the capital and be within its existing footprint.

Journalist Simon Jenkins encourages scepticism of powerful lobbies – previous moves “vital to the economic future of the capital” were averted including the Camden Motorway Box, the demolition of St Pancras and the flattening of Covent Garden.

He cautions that the claims of “necessity” are “mostly garbage fuelled by antiquated planning theory and the eagerness of a few firms to make lots of money”

As Mr Jenkins points out Covent Garden and St Pancras have never looked back since the people won.

Lend us your support and visit our website http://pancamdenhs2 alliance.org

• Peter Jones writes here for the Pan Camden HS2 Alliance