HS2 Budget: £40bn

Herzlos

I'd rather we invested in rail infrastructure than air infrastructure. Because even if we're talking about international capacity, any domestic travel we can offload onto rail will free up some airport capacity.

Whilst this section on it's own isn't revolutionary, it's a step towards modern high speed rail across the country and that can only be a good thing.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But it does mean we have less money to spend in these areas, which will possibly (and has) lead to cuts in other services.

Does it mean that? I don't think you're naive enough to think that if infrastructure projects are shelved there will be a single penny extra for day to day spending.

Maybe I'm not getting emotional enough about this but think investment projects should be judged mainly on their economic merits. HS2 is aspirational and some of the benefits are so far ahead that there's always going to be debate about its viability.

There are plenty of other projects that need sorting and could be done relatively quickly. The M5/ M1 link road (the A/M 42) was designed with only two lanes for a long stretch - this needs sorting & quickly.

Airports - it seems it's impossible to travel into Heathrow without getting 'stacked' - waste of time, money & resources.

We're just to willing to accept not good enough as acceptable. Just look at the farce with the high speed rail link to the tunnel - a national disgrace.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Does it mean that? .

I would think so yes.

It stands to reason that if you spend £10bn on one thing, you have to cut back on something else.

At least it stands to reason at the moment when we don't have surplus revenues and are borrowing to pay for all of this.

If this is not the case, and we can spend any amount of money without effecting other services, great....let's crack on and spend on everything that requires investment.....

New schools, new hospitals, new roads, a 3rd runway....we could crack on and do the lot without having any impact on the financials or budgets of any current service. And we'd also be able to live in that ideal world!

Graham_Devon

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Graham made a comparison of the total estimated HS2 budget to a single year's spend by the NHS or the MoD. What's wrong with that? It was prefectly clear to me.
Maybe you felt the need to prove you're the alpha male of the forum with a post like this?

Awww prickly! :kisses3:

You alright!?

GhIFA

Maybe I'm not getting emotional enough about this but think investment projects should be judged mainly on their economic merits. HS2 is aspirational and some of the benefits are so far ahead that there's always going to be debate about
its viability.

It's odd, because people often bemoan the current state of the rail network by saying it has suffered from years of underinvestment, yet when investment is on the table........

Airports - it seems it's impossible to travel into Heathrow without getting 'stacked' - waste of time, money & resources.

As demonstrated by the live broadcast programme from Heathrow on the BBC last week. The section they did showing the volume of flights coming in first thing in the morning was quite eye-opening, having to get the timing right down to a second so that as one flight was taking off at one end of the runway, another's wheels were touching down at the other.

We're just to willing to accept not good enough as acceptable.

Well, we Brits don't like to make a fuss do we?!!

Graham_Devon

GhIFA wrote: »

It's odd, because people often bemoan the current state of the rail network by saying it has suffered from years of underinvestment, yet when investment is on the table........

I'd agree with investment into the current rail network. Indeed, I think £40bn could go quite far here and reach a LOT more commuters.

So in effect, I'd rather see £40bn spent on the existing infrastructure than one high speed line likely to be completely unaffordable to the majority.

Exile_geordie

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK, I should have said resource budget. I was just trying to add something to compare against.

So let's try something else. The NHS budget per year is £110bn. Look at what is achieved with that.

HS2 will cost £40bn.

Seems like a very large expenditure for me. But hey, what do I know. You can get to Birmingham 40 minutes quicker...but you may have to wait 4 months longer for a joint operation.

I know where I see more bang for the buck, and it seems to me that HS2 is a colossal waste of resources we don't actually have.

You are not doing a fair compairson though. £40 Bn over at least 10 years if not more, thats around £4Bn per year. A stark difference.

Then think about the jobs that will be created just by having to build it and the rather large supply chain that goes with it.

And the money itself is not just being grabbed from other projects either,it is being borrowed strictly for the building project so cant go towards building houses schools are anything else.

Exile_geordie

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd agree with investment into the current rail network. Indeed, I think £40bn could go quite far here and reach a LOT more commuters.

So in effect, I'd rather see £40bn spent on the existing infrastructure than one high speed line likely to be completely unaffordable to the majority.

There is generally not much room to build on current infrastructure though - was hard enough to do the 4 tracking on the WCML upgrade, unless you want to tear down peoples houses.

Also look how long the WCML upgrade took and the inconvenience that happened to the people who use the railway - do you really want to go through all that again?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I would think so yes.

It stands to reason that if you spend £10bn on one thing, you have to cut back on something else.

At least it stands to reason at the moment when we don't have surplus revenues and are borrowing to pay for all of this.

If this is not the case, and we can spend any amount of money without effecting other services, great....let's crack on and spend on everything that requires investment.....

New schools, new hospitals, new roads, a 3rd runway....we could crack on and do the lot without having any impact on the financials or budgets of any current service. And we'd also be able to live in that ideal world!

It's not an either or choice.

The funding methods for HS2 aren't clear (to me anyway) but I suspect that borrowing may be used and Osborne will apply 'golden rules' i.e. only borrow for investment. This will need to be accounted for in the costings but there's a clear difference between borrowing for investment and to fund day to day spending.

We need day to day spending AND investment. There's no point trying to argue one is better than the other - we need both.

For me it's simply whether HS2 has a decent return or whether, with limited resources, other infrastructure projects might deliver a better return more quickly.

Exile_geordie

MacMickster wrote: »

By the time that this is completed it may be a white elephant, with travel around the country far less important to the economy than has been the case.

I fear that we are investing in yesterday's technology tomorrow, and will find that it is rendered redundant by tomorrow's technology. We are likely to see far more working from home, virtual meetings etc. Committing that £40billion+ to providing good quality housing would do far more to make the UK economy competetive in the future.

How? Building £40Bn worth of housing will only benefit the economy until they are built. After that, nothing.

High speed passenger travel will be contributing to it every single year, year after year, long after it has been built. And by taking passengers off the already congested WCML will make more paths for freight trains to run during the day which will take more lorries off the road which is better for the environment too.