HS2 - knife edge of continuation or not.. but still countryside torn up

[Lanky123]

Oh cool, so HS2 is essentially free? Woohoo!

Maybe it would be if we put the people who did that garden bridge over the Thames in charge. We must already be getting a good return on that project, right?

[Top_gun]

Right. So as the money spent in London is cost neutral that should free up money to be invested in other areas without the expectation of an immediate 100% return on it but to build them up over time so that eventually they'd reach that point.

The alternative is never to invest anywhere outside the M25 and watch the rest of the country fall further and further behind. How would that help?

Ah, progress. Now you realise London don't get a pot of gold from HMT just for being London.

As for investing outside London then that becomes more of a political decision. For example, do we spend it on infrastructure instead of the NHS. Is there evidence that the new infrastructure has regeneration benefits?

Oh cool, so HS2 is essentially free? Woohoo!

I don't see HS2 as a London only project when most of its infrastructure is outside London. HS2 is largely a Tory vanity project where its benefits seem overstated. Is London supportive of HS2? I very much doubt it.

HS2 and the garden bridge are Tory vanity projects. Both were steeped up in controversies and driven for political reasons rather than the wishes of Londoners.

HS2 only exists as free in Spreadie's mind because he doesn't understand how public infrastructure funding works.

Anyway Spreadie, have you thought of this for a solution?:

[Spreadie]

I don't see HS2 as a London only project when most of its infrastructure is outside London.

And yet you went on the defensive when I called it London-centric nonsense. Make up your mind.

HS2 only exists as free in Spreadie's mind because he doesn't understand how public infrastructure funding works.

You mean like PFIs? Cuz they're just flawless, aren't they?

What would I know - I'm just a remain-voting semi-illiterate UKIPer.

Anyway Spreadie, have you thought of this for a solution?:

I know a lot has been going know, so I'll forgive you for missing it, but she's not actually the PM any more.

[Top_gun]

And yet you went on the defensive when I called it London-centric nonsense. Make up your mind.

You mean like PFIs? Cuz they're just flawless, aren't they?

What would I know - I'm just a remain-voting semi-illiterate UKIPer.


I know a lot has been going know, so I'll forgive you for missing it, but she's not actually the PM any more.

I am opposed to HS2 and I can't see why any Londoner has a strong desire to travel to Birmingham having been there.

Spreadie, I had no idea you were a UKIP supporter. How sad?

PFIs were invented by the Tories so we know it is flawed by design.

As for the money tree, apparently she left it behind in Downing Street, didn't you know?

[peterb]

It’s not just about Londoners travelling to Birmingham (who doesn’t really want them) but about two way travel. Those people who unfortunately have to work in London, but don’t wish to pay the grossly inflated house prices and want a better quality of life. It also benefits the other centres of wealth generation such as Manchester (currently expanding its airport into a large air freight hub) and other northern cities. Of course, someone with London Centric blinkers couldn’t possibly appreciate that.

It may also encourage some businesses to move out of London to reduce their overheads and provide a better quality of life for their emoyees.

[spacein_vader]

Ah, progress. Now you realise London don't get a pot of gold from HMT just for being London.

As for investing outside London then that becomes more of a political decision. For example, do we spend it on infrastructure instead of the NHS. Is there evidence that the new infrastructure has regeneration benefits?



I don't see HS2 as a London only project when most of its infrastructure is outside London. HS2 is largely a Tory vanity project where its benefits seem overstated. Is London supportive of HS2? I very much doubt it.

HS2 and the garden bridge are Tory vanity projects. Both were steeped up in controversies and driven for political reasons rather than the wishes of Londoners.

HS2 only exists as free in Spreadie's mind because he doesn't understand how public infrastructure funding works.

Anyway Spreadie, have you thought of this for a solution?:

Feel free to point out where I did suggest London got a pot of gold from HMG for being London.

Also all government spending, regardless of ROI is be it's very definition a political decision.

[Dashers]

Giving greater access to London from outside is good, as well as visa-versa, but really we shouldn't be investing heavily in moving people around with the climate issues hanging over. I'd far rather that money was spent on fibre across the country and encouraging white-collar business to move away from central offices and cut off the need to commute at the knees.

[Top_gun]

HS2 will go down as a waste of money. Regeneration benefits hugely inflated. If firms and people wanted to relocate outside London then they can do it now as there's still an underused train line from Birmingham to London.

The reality is HS2 will drain the public purse long after the line is built. It will requires £6bn for maintenance each annum while receiving £1bn in revenues (this figure may even be over inflated as there is no published ticket prices). In short, this project will never pay for itself and take money away from other infrastructure else where.

[Butcher]

The combine population of these cities is around 2 million. Very small number when compared to London. The cost of the project will be nearly as expensive as HS2 considering the train line will be around 110km in length. Now when you calculate the population over the distance then it will count as a low catchment area. The question you will need to ask yourself is will the Treasure get the return on investment? Probably not. The local population will not want to pay for expensive tickets where most of the money is used to finance the maintenance of its long tracks.

Manchester is 2.8 million alone. Liverpool (which is to say Merseyside) is a further 1.4 million. That's half the population of London already.
But it doesn't matter about facts because all money spent outside of London might as well just be set on fire for all the good it does, right?

[Butcher]

HS2 will go down as a waste of money. Regeneration benefits hugely inflated. If firms and people wanted to relocate outside London then they can do it now as there's still an underused train line from Birmingham to London.

The reality is HS2 will drain the public purse long after the line is built. It will requires £6bn for maintenance each annum while receiving £1bn in revenues (this figure may even be over inflated as there is no published ticket prices). In short, this project will never pay for itself and take money away from other infrastructure else where.

Solution, everyone moves to London?

[Top_gun]

Manchester is 2.8 million alone. Liverpool (which is to say Merseyside) is a further 1.4 million. That's half the population of London already.
But it doesn't matter about facts because all money spent outside of London might as well just be set on fire for all the good it does, right?

Ah facts, the figures I quoted were based on population for each city. Your figures are based on wider areas such as Greater Manchester and Merseyside. I can play that game by saying London gets half its work force from the home counties and there justify a higher capital spending.

I'm not opposed to development in the North as long as they pay for it themselves just like London.

[Butcher]

Ah facts, the figures I quoted were based on population for each city. Your figures are based on wider areas such as Greater Manchester and Merseyside. I can play that game by saying London gets half its work force from the home counties and there justify a higher capital spending.

I'm not opposed to development in the North as long as they pay for it themselves just like London.

If you're going to take Manchester city centre, surely you should compare it to the City of London?
Greater Manchester to Greater London doesn't seem to be that incredible a comparison, we hardly need to pull in all adjacent counties for each here.

[spacein_vader]

Ah facts, the figures I quoted were based on population for each city. Your figures are based on wider areas such as Greater Manchester and Merseyside. I can play that game by saying London gets half its work force from the home counties and there justify a higher capital spending.

I'm not opposed to development in the North as long as they pay for it themselves just like London.

How is London paying for crossrail?

[rob4001]

Didnt the Japanese go through all this with the bullet train in the 60's massively overly expensive and controversial. Now it is their crown jewel

[Top_gun]

How is London paying for crossrail?

Section 106s, CILs, Business rates, taxations from a growing population in the form income tax, stamp duty, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if HMT is making money from this.

Also, Crossrail has a projected income of between £190 to 200m a year. The project is hardly a drain public finances like HS2.

[spacein_vader]

Section 106s, CILs, Business rates, taxations from a growing population in the form income tax, stamp duty, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if HMT is making money from this.

Also, Crossrail has a projected income of between £190 to 200m a year. The project is hardly a drain public finances like HS2.

Again, true of any public building project, in most areas of the country and certainly those already mentioned. The government has also claimed that HS2 will generate benefits of £2.50 for every £1 spent on it. I assume you find that just as credible as their claims for Crossrails projected income?