HS2 Budget: £40bn

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

I'm pretty sure we need to increase rail transport from a whole lot of angles for freight, commuter transport and high-speed long-distance transport.

In a rapidly-degrading environment the economic costs must be made affordable or else we need to radically overhaul the economy to make it so.

We can't be "wealthy" in a ruined environment. And I don't doubt we could ruin the world big-time.

It's a bit like Winston Churchill telling Britain in WWII "we are under threat from Germany and I've just checked the accounts and we can't afford to survive so let's have suggestions on how to surrender as economically as possible"

railways are a money eating machine

there is no economic justification for further railways other than commuter railways and they should have their fares raised so they pay the full costs

they are a huge tax payer subsidy for rich businessmen and rich commuters

for most products transport by rail is uneconomic

a bit like Churchill telling people that we are in a major crisis so he has decided to spend billions on a vanity project just because he made a ridiculous decision to oppose the third runway at Heathrow and didn't want to be seen to change his mind.

[Deleted User]

Generally I am in favour of infrastructure projects, but I'd prefer the effect of them to be to reduce the "draw" of London and the south east. All this will mean is that more folk will become commuter slaves to the Greater London economy. I doubt if the trains will be empty heading south and full to bursting heading north in the morning rush!

It is being described as an infrastructure plan that will help the midlands and the north. I strongly suspect the real reason is to further entrench the already overwhelming dominance of London and the South East at the expense of industrial and social well-being of the rest of the country.

Given the relative health of the London economy, I'd prefer to see more projects specifically aimed at directly improving the economic prospects of the rest of the country. Given the infrastructure (economic, political, social, sporting and cultural) that is already there, London can't really to anything to prevent itself growing further. Maybe it's time for the Government to consciously direct more investment elsewhere?

WR

Edited to add - please don't think that this is all just some typical anti-London viewpoint from a Scot! On the few recent occasions that I have been to London, I found it overcrowded to the point where I have no idea how folk can bear to live there. Spreading economic activity elsewhere would improve the quality of life for Londoners too!

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

railways are a money eating machine

there is no economic justification for further railways other than commuter railways and they should have their fares raised so they pay the full costs

they are a huge tax payer subsidy for rich businessmen and rich commuters

for most products transport by rail is uneconomic

a bit like Churchill telling people that we are in a major crisis so he has decided to spend billions on a vanity project just because he made a ridiculous decision to oppose the third runway at Heathrow and didn't want to be seen to change his mind.

I'd be surprised if we got a commuter railway system to work without government subsidies. Are there many successful examples of this working well?

And would we consider scrapping the defence budget as its just a money hole?

Anyway, I'd link the neglected parts of the country; tMidlands, the North, Wales and Scotland to a fast train network that missed out london and linked straight to mainland Europe.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

I'd be surprised if we got a commuter railway system to work without government subsidies. Are there many successful examples of this working well?

And would we consider scrapping the defence budget as its just a money hole?

Anyway, I'd link the neglected parts of the country; tMidlands, the North, Wales and Scotland to a fast train network that missed out london and linked straight to mainland Europe.

So lets say the government allocates 100billion to achieve your dream of revitalising the neglected parts of the UK.

Would you really choose the spent it on railways?

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

So lets say the government allocates 100billion to achieve your dream of revitalising the neglected parts of the UK.

Would you really choose the spent it on railways?

What's your better option?:D

CLAPTON

Wild_Rover wrote: »

WR

Edited to add - please don't think that this is all just some typical anti-London viewpoint from a Scot! On the few recent occasions that I have been to London, I found it overcrowded to the point where I have no idea how folk can bear to live there. Spreading economic activity elsewhere would improve the quality of life for Londoners too!

Maybe one needs to reflect why millions of people disagree with you and flock to London when they could go to Central Scotland.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Wild_Rover wrote: »

I doubt if the trains will be empty heading south and full to bursting heading north in the morning rush!

Which is of course really, really, weird.

As some on here keep telling us that cheap houses and commercial property are all that is required to give UK firms a competitive advantage and prevent offshoring of jobs.

But vast areas of the UK (Northern England, Wales, Southern Scotland, etc) already have stupidly cheap real estate, yet remain economically destitute.

While the most expensive areas of the country are the ones in economic growth.....

Weird.....

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

What's your better option?:D

I am rather sceptical about public bodies trying to pick economic 'winners'.

If HS2 is a winner then let the private sector fund it and make the profit... it won't have a monopoly as there are already two excellent train services between London and Birmingham.
A third runway at Heathrow would be funded by private money exceept that a pretend green idiot promised not to build one.


If there is a real demand for better train services or better roads between Uk regions than I'm not opposed to government funding but not the the basis of one can't think of anything better.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

a bit like Churchill telling people that we are in a major crisis so he has decided to spend billions on a vanity project just because he made a ridiculous decision to oppose the third runway at Heathrow and didn't want to be seen to change his mind.

I was trying to recall (too lazy to look it up) from last century when we were affluent enough to be in/start or join a war almost every single year.

There were even occasions when governments formed war cabinets that excluded finance ministers to stop the rest being distracted from the vital job in hand- it certainnly did happen, but not sure it was Churchill.

ILW

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm still not sure why the HS2 debate is being framed in terms of hip replacements or social housing. These choices aren't being offered - not going ahead with HS2 won't lead to a single extra house being built or extra hip operations carried out.

The point of government is to effectively manage all of these things. If more housing is needed the government should be using policy to facilitate this, the same with the NHS and the same with HS2.

I've travelled on bullet trains in China and the rail network in Northern Europe. By comparison our network is smelly, overcrowded and decrepit - there are still trains that flush sewage straight onto the tracks - it's 2013!

Apart of the effect on the economy of the initial build the benefits will be long term yes, we all know it'll be delivered late and over budget but the journey time savings are significant and there will be less reliance on the South-East to generate economic wealth.

At the very least there should be investment in the rail network. Thank heavens for the Victorians because it looks like we'll be reliant on their foresight for decades to come.

The victorian rail network was built using private investors money. Not with government borrowing.