Should HS2 proceed : Yes or No?

[Spud1]

I tend to think it will allow for more advance fares - if I book when the trains are quiet - e.g. a month or two ahead - its cheap..I can do a peak time return for £60, not too bad. When they are busy, the prices are crazy expensive...since HS2 is mostly about capacity (and also lower running costs), i;d expect prices to be cheaper (in relative terms - keeping inflation etc in mind).

[Saracen999]

It's not a line I'm likely to use, so no axe to grind either way.

I hope you're right, Spud. I'm just ..... ummm .... sceptical. And maybe cynical too.

[Zak33]

Im a NO

Because I'm seeing the ridiculous waste of money on my very door step every single day.

I'm seeing trees and hedges netted off for 1 year so they can prove there's no wildlife at stake when they cut them down
I'm seeing plans for fields being dug up and moved. Yes entire fields are to be dug to a depth of over 1m and being relaid elsewhere to save the bio diversity in the soil.
I'm seeing designs for tunnels that aren't dug into the side of hills. They're massive ravines dug from above, and then a concrete lid is to be put on it and a skim of soil to allow grass to grow. No trees will grow along those lids.
I'm seeing good agriculatural growing fields, laid fallow while contractors park up and wait...for years.
I'm seeing rows of saplings planted to create noise breaks, in mid summer and then no one is paid to water them and everyone dies... thousands of them

And for an actual personal "it happened to me" moment....

Last winter I stopped my car in a country lane, at 9pm to take a star photo with my mobile phone... it was laid on the roof, middle of a country lane, AC DC playing on the stereo, while I counted to 100 for the shot to take... and a security gaurd walked out of a field, to ask what I was doing. I told him to leave me alone and he stood there with his torch and said he had to wait until I'd driven off. He was gaurding the new site that a truck site was due to be built on the next month. He had to protect it from antis

But..... I'd go with all of that if I thought the efficency and time to travel to the north would shrink sizably. But it won't. It'll save an hour from London to Brum I think. woopeee.

I see no CO2 calcuations for the concrete, work force, diggers, smelting of steel, laying of tracks, creation of trains (from China) or building of bridges along the route

And it won't be cheap to travel on.. how can it be? At that cost

[shaithis]

Would be nice for the south west to get some transport link upgrades........

So I say no, as the links to the North are much better than the links to the South West currently. How about doing things in a logical manor?

Especially with the cornwall spaceport that (I beleive) has been agreed. The links down here are bad enough already.....now there is going to be a huge influx in people and frieght....

[Zak33]

Would be nice for the south west to get some transport link upgrades........

So I say no, as the links to the North are much better than the links to the South West currently. How about doing things in a logical manor?

now THAT makes sense.

and therefore won't occur.. but it DOES make sense.

tell you what else we could do with between 50 and 100 billion quid...

have proper national internet networking- now THAT would make us more efficient.

[Ttaskmaster]

Would be nice for the south west to get some transport link upgrades........

Well, I saw that docu the other day, on the declining Cornish fishing industry.
The general hope seemed to be that Brexit would lead to better control over our waters and a swell in local fishing, which could subsequently mean improvements in freight and transport lines...?

For those who aren't fans of scenery and outdoor pursuits, Terry English, or some other niche interest, Cornwall basically has Goonhilly/Eden Project, cream teas and pasties. You'll need more than just a reasonable fry up at the Jamaica Inn to draw the people and investments that would justify public transport, over what they rely on private vehicles to currently facilitate.

[Zak33]

For those who aren't fans of scenery and outdoor pursuits, Terry English, or some other niche interest, Cornwall basically has Goonhilly/Eden Project, cream teas and pasties. You'll need more than just a reasonable fry up at the Jamaica Inn to draw the people and investments that would justify public transport, over what they rely on private vehicles to currently facilitate.

might add a few to this (all of which are tourist based)

Lost Gardens of Heligan
Lands End
St Michaels Mount
Sandy Beaches for family holidays

but I take your point. It's quiet..

[[GSV]Trig]

I see no CO2 calcuations for the concrete, work force, diggers, smelting of steel, laying of tracks, creation of trains (from China) or building of bridges along the route

And it won't be cheap to travel on.. how can it be? At that cost

What about the continued air travel that many use to get 'hup Norf, less air travel is a good thing right if HS2 cits travel enough to not need to fly.

[Zak33]

What about the continued air travel that many use to get 'hup Norf, less air travel is a good thing right if HS2 cits travel enough to not need to fly.

yup.. agreed. But there's another issue there, isnt there?

Aviation fuel has no tax on it.. so it's cheap to fly planes and even cheaper when the government bails out failing flight companies.

So HS2 will HAVE to be cheap to compete.. and it cant be cheap at it's current cost.

Chickens and Eggs and all sorts of things between are leaving everyone baffled

[neonplanet40]

It's a no from me. It would never reach Scotland anyway so wouldn't directly impact me in my day to day life. However, the massive amount of money that it would likely cost (which seems to rise every month) could be used to update the rail network across the WHOLE of the UK, rather than just the south. Let's be honest, the UK rail network, it's managment, it's operation and it's maintenance is an absoulte shambles. One trip to mainland Eurpoe will highlight jsut how poor it is. Surely tackling this would be a better use of funds and time/effort etc? Similarly, it looks like it could have a devastating impact on wildlife at a time of a national 'climate crisis' - not that you could tell there was a climate crisis as nothing is happening from the government to tackle it other than hot air (pun intended)....

I'm from the frame of mind that LOTS of smaller projects across the entire transport network would likely have a much wider cumulative impact on the everyday people across the entire UK. As such, the estimated £100B (an insane number when you think about it, no?) could be much better spent to benefit EVERYONE.

However, it won't happen as some politicians like their vanity projects. So I expect to see it go ahead. But I would love to hear it isn't and the money that WAS going to be used for it was getting equally allocated across the UK to focus on transport improvements.

[Zak33]

It's a no from me. ..... massive amount of money that it would likely cost (which seems to rise every month) could be used to update the rail network across the WHOLE of the UK, ..the UK rail network, it's managment, it's operation and it's maintenance is an absoulte shambles. One trip to mainland Eurpoe will highlight jsut how poor it is. ... But I would love to hear it isn't and the money that WAS going to be used for it was getting equally allocated across the UK to focus on transport improvements.

utterly agree. 100%

[badass]

No, NO, NO, NO and NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

NO.

It's the principle of opportunity cost.

You aunt gives you £100 for your birthday. You can either go out for a slap-up meal, or buy a new computer widget.

The opportunity cost is that is you do one, you can't do the other.

How much more true that is of spending £106 billion quid.

I'm a "no" because of opportunity cost.

I have no problem with spending £106bn (*) provided

a) we get best bang for bucks, AND
b) we get it impacting in the right places.

Those right places are, essentially, not-London. Probably not-SouthEast either.

There is, however, a danger of saying "spend it in the North", including that "the North" is not one homogenous, equal blob. Not all cities are equal, there are disparities between city and town, and even bigger disparities between city/town, and rural communities.

For instance, a rural community might really need a local hi-speed broadband hub, or a community post office, or better public transport links from country to tiwn/city (or all three), or .... you get the picture. Also, one local community might need that BB link, the next one a post office and yet anothdf, better local bus/rail.

Who's best equipped to decide local needs? Hint - it ain't some muppet in Whitehall. Or Downing Street.

I'm in favour of investing in the North (and other disadvantaged areas), but the real question is what gives the best bsng for buck, either in returns in jobs, etc, or in acdressing necessary social needs.


(*) SO ..... £106bn eh?

First it was £30bn-ish, then (IIRC) £58bn, then around £80bn, now £106bn.

Anyone got any faith it'll even come in at that? Final bill?

Anyone?

Hello? ..... lloooo, lloo, oo.

Thought not.

Totally and completely agree with all of that apart from the bit in bold. I suspect that it's likely that the money will be most effectively spent in various parts of the country including bits of London and the south east.

[badass]

It's a no from me. It would never reach Scotland anyway so wouldn't directly impact me in my day to day life. However, the massive amount of money that it would likely cost (which seems to rise every month) could be used to update the rail network across the WHOLE of the UK, rather than just the south. Let's be honest, the UK rail network, it's managment, it's operation and it's maintenance is an absoulte shambles. One trip to mainland Eurpoe will highlight jsut how poor it is. Surely tackling this would be a better use of funds and time/effort etc? Similarly, it looks like it could have a devastating impact on wildlife at a time of a national 'climate crisis' - not that you could tell there was a climate crisis as nothing is happening from the government to tackle it other than hot air (pun intended)....

I'm from the frame of mind that LOTS of smaller projects across the entire transport network would likely have a much wider cumulative impact on the everyday people across the entire UK. As such, the estimated £100B (an insane number when you think about it, no?) could be much better spent to benefit EVERYONE.

However, it won't happen as some politicians like their vanity projects. So I expect to see it go ahead. But I would love to hear it isn't and the money that WAS going to be used for it was getting equally allocated across the UK to focus on transport improvements.

My gut feeling is that a large chunk of it would be best spent removing/replacing the huge number of different signalling systems across the UK network with something vastly more modern (on the condition of the complete removal of the huge number of older systems of course. Any leftovers could be spent increasing the gauge (note not track gauge, UK and Europe are the same there) in targeted areas so we can use European trains in select parts of the network, saving money when buying new trains.

[Ttaskmaster]

might add a few to this (all of which are tourist based)

All those come under scenery or outdoor pursuits, really.
About the only thing that don't is Bodmin Jail.

[ik9000]

No. It doesn't stack up IMO. But look at how much overseas interest is involved and then, I'm told, you'll see why they are reluctant to cancel it. It was put to me that a certain (overseas) nation has a big stake in it and it was passed to appease them. Interesting if that is true.

[Zak33]

No. It doesn't stack up IMO. But look at how much overseas interest is involved and then, I'm told, you'll see why they are reluctant to cancel it. It was put to me that a certain (overseas) nation has a big stake in it and it was passed to appease them. Interesting if that is true.

thats exctly it...the question is....what do we owe China?