We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
HS2, is it right for the UK?
Comments
-
No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.Yes.
We already have millions of cars. They are getting more efficient by the year. Amazingly, they generally go where you need to get to, and from where you want to begin your journey.
I wouldn't mind my car journey taking 6 hours to London if I can have a kip in the back during it
We should invest massively in self drive and sell it to the rest of the world.
It's much more sexy than HS2
Self drive tech is going to be thw first real intelligence revolution tech
It will make transport considerably cheaper quicker and better
Cars already are net providers to the treasury while trains are net takers
I would imagine once self drive tech is common a lot of the train lines will be abandoned and converted into roads for self drive cars.
Also a common misconception is to think trains are green. They are not. Wven the london underground effectively one of the worlds most green 'train' systems uses more energy than a modern car. The reason is becuase the stations use a lot of energy too0 -
No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.How much trust can we have in any estimated cost of proposed projects, I think that the honest answer is simply none.
By putting estimated cost on paper is totally unrealistic and totally unfair to do so because the public when faced with such an estimation as the HS2 will most certainly say we could spend the money better that's human nature.
I can recall the estimated cost to build a new Scottish Parliament Building in Scotland's Capital Edinburgh.
The first estimate of £10m was revised to become £40m to the outcry of many Scots at the time.
The building was finally finished 3 years late at a final cost of £414m
That is the reliance that can be put on estimates, none because nobody can realistically be expected to in the first place to put a figure on a project that is such a mammoth task.0 -
How much trust can we have in any estimated cost of proposed projects, I think that the honest answer is simply none.
The cost of two new aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy is expected to be almost twice the original estimate, the government is expected to confirm this week.
In the latest budget, the Ministry of Defence is set to estimate the cost of the two ships at £6.2bn.
The department says it is renegotiating the contract to avoid further significant rises.
Six years ago, when the contract was approved, costs were put at £3.65bn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24801942
48 jets at current price of £3.5bn on top.
Which are also years behind schedule according to this.
The program is years behind schedule and nearly 70 percent over original cost estimates, but U.S. officials said last week the program is now making progress in flight testing, production and long-term operating costs.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE98Q18720130927
The nuclear power plant(s?) will go the same way.
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.Don't be fooled by bridges to nowhere type infrastructure
China is a vast country nearly 100x the area of England.
What makes sense for them doesn't necessarily make sense for much smallee much more dense England.
Actually think for a moment what the costs actually are. £50B+ is more money than all the homes in Birmingham. How can you justify a transport link that costs more than the city it is linking to?
Where did you get that figure (£50B for all of Birmingham)? I hope that was plain ignorance rather than deliberate misleading.
The Birmingham metropolitan area has a population of 2.4 million. Let's make the maths easy an assume 2.4 people per household (conservatively high, as many people will live in singles or couples rather than families). That's 1 million households, giving £50,000 per household by your calculation. Are you saying the average house price in Birmingham is less than £50k?
Except even then, your calculation is bogus. The £50B is actually £42B. HS2 doesn't just connect London to Birmingham. It also connects Manchester (population: 2.55 Million), Leeds (1.78 Million), Nottingham (0.73 Million) and Sheffield (0.69 Million). By my maths that's a total of 8.15 million people, and 3.4 million households (again, using 2.4 people per household). This brings the cost down to £12,300 per household. I can assure you the average price of a house outside of London is more than this. (Those population figures from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom by the way)
Even then, that's conservative. Those five places (excluding London - why did you exclude London from your statement by the way?) aren't the only places served by HS2. You've got Liverpool, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle, York, Preston, the Potteries and more that will also be served by HS2. Then you've got all the other places that will benefit from increased capacity on the West Coast, East Coast and Midland Main Lines?0 -
Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.How much trust can we have in any estimated cost of proposed projects, I think that the honest answer is simply none.
By putting estimated cost on paper is totally unrealistic and totally unfair to do so because the public when faced with such an estimation as the HS2 will most certainly say we could spend the money better that's human nature.
I can recall the estimated cost to build a new Scottish Parliament Building in Scotland's Capital Edinburgh.
The first estimate of £10m was revised to become £40m to the outcry of many Scots at the time.
The building was finally finished 3 years late at a final cost of £414m
That is the reliance that can be put on estimates, none because nobody can realistically be expected to in the first place to put a figure on a project that is such a mammoth task.
The £10-40 million didn't even have a design on the table, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_Building. It didn't even have a location! It was just a wish list.
And that's before all the MPs stuck their oar in, and changed everything on a daily basis. That building is the epitome of how not to run a construction project, and why MPs should be (and have since been) barred from making changes to specifications.
I repeat what I said in post 96.- Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link (£300 million, completed in 2010) delivered on budget
- HS1 (£5.8 billion, completed in 2007) delivered on budget
- Borders (Waverley) Railway (£295 million, not yet complete) costs have risen to £348 million.
I include the last one as costs have risen, but only by 18%, and not the 3 or 4 times that some people have quoted. (Please note that the above figures are from 10 minutes on the internet, and I don't know how accurate they are.)0 -
Just thought I'd put the real numbers in, and reduce the cost by almost two thirds.
Send that on to Cameron, I think you will have a job there.;)
Send him a nice train, drawn in green crayon and they could add it to the electioneering letter heads.
Problem solved.
You aren't Sir David Higgins by any chance?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.grizzly1911 wrote: »Send that on to Cameron, I think you will have a job there.;)
Send him a nice train, drawn in green crayon and they could add it to the electioneering letter heads.
Problem solved.
Might just do that! :Tgrizzly1911 wrote: »You aren't Sir David Higgins by any chance?
No, afraid not. I just don't like it when people make up facts and then use them as justification for their opinion. The problem is that other people believe them!0 -
No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.Might just do that! :T
No, afraid not. I just don't like it when people make up facts and then use them as justification for their opinion. The problem is that other people believe them!
You sound so much like a politician searching for an excuse to cover up the facts, my post was factual and all you try to do is twist the facts to suit your policies.
You sound just like a Spin Doctor.0 -
Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.You sound so much like a politician searching for an excuse to cover up the facts, my post was factual and all you try to do is twist the facts to suit your policies.
You sound just like a Spin Doctor.
What have I covered up? What facts have I twisted? Please tell me. I linked to the page with the information on!
I haven't spun anything.I saw the same facts as you (I presume you got them from Wikipedia). There was a whole section behind the cost increase, about two thirds of the way down. My entire knowledge of that project is what I just read on there.
You are the one who has covered things up.You posted those numbers without any context.Wikipedia wrote:Timeline of cost increases
The construction of the Scottish Parliament Building has generated controversy in several respects. Rising costs and the use of public money to fund the project generated most controversy.[8] Initial estimates for constructing a new building were projected to be between £10m and £40m in 1997.[8] By early 2004, the estimated final cost of the project was set at £430m, some ten times greater.[69]
Date Cost Reason 24 July 1997 c£10m-£40m[25] The first cost projection provided by the Scottish Office is for housing MSPs in a new Scottish Parliament. The estimate takes no account of the location or design of any new building.[70]
6 July 1998 £50-£55m[71] The design of Miralles is chosen and the revised estimate updates the preliminary figure recognising that the initial projection was based on a cleared site of 16,000 m² (172,222 sq ft) on brownfield land in Leith, Haymarket or Holyrood.[72] The figure does not include VAT or site acquisition costs.[71]
17 June 1999 £109m[25] First Minister, Donald Dewar provisionally estimates the costs at £109m.[71] The increased figure takes account of consultancy fees, site costs, demolition, VAT, archaeology work, risk and contingencies.[70]
5 April 2000 £195m[25] Cost projections increase by £86m.[71]
November 2001 £241m[25] The new figure is officially announced and takes into account increases in space and major design changes resulting from a changed brief over the previous year.[73] Rising costs are also blamed on construction problems ahead of an attempt to try to complete the building project by May 2003.[70] The then Presiding Officer Sir David Steel informs the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament that rescheduling work is increasing costs.[73]
December 2002 c£300m[25] A cost increase to £295m in October 2002, is reported to be due to increased security needs, requiring that bombproof cladding be incorporated into designs for the external fabric of the building.[22] Rising costs are also put down to "hidden extras" in the construction process and by December 2002 "ongoing delays" raise costs above the £300m barrier.[22] The completion date for the building slips again, and plans for a grand "Opening Ceremony" are shelved indefinitely.[22]
September 2003 £400m[25] In July, the new Presiding Officer, George Reid produces the first of his "monthly reports" on the cost and schedule of the building, and provides a figure of £373.9m.[71] The new figure comes in the light of reports that consultancy fees for the project top £50m.[70] By September costs break the £400m barrier and are blamed on construction problems in the interior of the building.[70]
February 2004 £430m +[25] Costs are revealed to have increased again due to further problems with construction.[22] The official opening of the building is tentatively put back again to some time in 2005, however the building finally opens in October.[70]
February 2007 £414.4m[9] The final cost is announced by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, a reduction of £16.1m on the previous estimate.[9]
I agree that not everything was down to the MPs. I did say that it was how not to run a construction project.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards