HS2, is it right for the UK?

Generali

This thread shows exactly why all the roads and rails are full in Britain and you're about to run out of electricity.

As soon as anyone proposes building anything at all you all whinge your heads off.

It's the same with Heathrow: it's a shambles because nobody is prepared to just get on and sort out airports in SE England.

shortchanged_2

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

Generali wrote: »

This thread shows exactly why all the roads and rails are full in Britain and you're about to run out of electricity.

As soon as anyone proposes building anything at all you all whinge your heads off.

It's the same with Heathrow: it's a shambles because nobody is prepared to just get on and sort out airports in SE England.

Yes but to be fair Gen a project has got to stand up on its merits. I'm not sure that HS2 is the answer to the UK's problems. As many others have pointed out it will be nothing more than a rich mans toy.

I have a horrible feeling that the way it will be priced, I'm sure ticket prices will be horrendously expensive, that it will actually no where near add to the capacity that they claim it will. A bit like 1st class usage on the current network.

I'd be much more in favour of ensuring that the current fast routes into London are maintained and even upgraded and making the links between other cities much, much better. As someone pointed out before it takes about 2 hours for a train to get from Liverpool to Leeds. That is not acceptable for a relatively short journey between 2 of the UK's major cities.

I would also like to see better airports outside of London to try to help take the pressure off the SE airport gateway.

kabayiri

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

Generali wrote: »

This thread shows exactly why all the roads and rails are full in Britain and you're about to run out of electricity.

As soon as anyone proposes building anything at all you all whinge your heads off.

It's the same with Heathrow: it's a shambles because nobody is prepared to just get on and sort out airports in SE England.

Not really.

A number of people have suggested using significant funds to maximise the usage of our road system. To optimise a road network you have to get the traffic elements working in a cooperative manner. We saw exactly the same problem in a more simplified sense in manufacturing in the 70s and 80s. Technology and materials management have transformed industrial throughput in recent decades. I spent months working with some of the world's best experts in planning so I think I have some idea about this.

HS2 will not improve the journey experience of anyone whose regular journey does not fall within its path. Yet they will still be stumping up the vast proportion of the bill.

I maintain we have better options which are capable of delivering greater returns (and this is coming from a train fan who spends a lot of time on 25 year old diesel rail stock which should have been replaced years ago).

kabayiri

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

I can say one thing.

I have heard more balanced discussion and arguments for/against HS2 on here than anything coming from parliament.

It seems a committed cause, where to back down will be seen as politically weak.

kabayiri

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

shortchanged wrote: »

...
I would also like to see better airports outside of London to try to help take the pressure off the SE airport gateway.

You only have to look at the development of Manchester airport in recent years. It's capacity has been enhanced significantly.

Generali

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes but to be fair Gen a project has got to stand up on its merits. I'm not sure that HS2 is the answer to the UK's problems. As many others have pointed out it will be nothing more than a rich mans toy.

I agree but in the eyes of pretty much everyone, as far as I can see, absolutely no infrastructure project in the UK ever does which is why nothing gets done.

What was the last really large, completely new transport project in the UK. M25? Eurostar link maybe but that was mostly upgrading what was already there.

ILW

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

Generali wrote: »

I agree but in the eyes of pretty much everyone, as far as I can see, absolutely no infrastructure project in the UK ever does which is why nothing gets done.

What was the last really large, completely new transport project in the UK. M25? Eurostar link maybe but that was mostly upgrading what was already there.

The last real major project was the channel tunnel, been a white elephant with no real benefits to anyone, did put most of the ferries out of business though.

noodle_doodle

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

As someone said earlier in this thread, build new rail lines between the big cities in the north, hull to liverpool, sheffield to newcastle. Get the WCML between birmingham and glasgow up to full zap. Sod London, it gets enough, and building more infrastructure targeted at the place will just make it an even bigger vampire on the rest of the uk than it already is. And shift parliament and the civil service to York. Separate financial and political centres works for most other modern democracies, let's try it here.

Edit: I should also add it'd all be cheaper per mile too, as you don't have to compulsory purchase 3-bedroom semi's that are valued at 700k or prime arable land in the home counties

kabayiri

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

Generali wrote: »

I agree but in the eyes of pretty much everyone, as far as I can see, absolutely no infrastructure project in the UK ever does which is why nothing gets done.

What was the last really large, completely new transport project in the UK. M25? Eurostar link maybe but that was mostly upgrading what was already there.

Surely the beauty of an integrated transport network is that you can do lots of small/mid scale transport projects and their overall contribution will be greater than the sum of the parts?

The Manchester tram network can not be considered large, for example. But I have no doubt that making Salford easier to access was a factor in encouraging the Beeb to move a big chunk of it's operation to Media city.

It's popularity is not in doubt. Every commuter tram is packed.

noodle_doodle

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

kabayiri wrote: »

Surely the beauty of an integrated transport network is that you can do lots of small/mid scale transport projects and their overall contribution will be greater than the sum of the parts?

The Manchester tram network can not be considered large, for example. But I have no doubt that making Salford easier to access was a factor in encouraging the Beeb to move a big chunk of it's operation to Media city.

It's popularity is not in doubt. Every commuter tram is packed.

Agreed if there's some thought behind it, unlike say the edinburgh tram 'network'. £1bn for a single line shuttling between the airport and the city centre when there's already a quality bus service doing the same. Apart from anything else, edinburgh airport is a triangle hemmed in on two sides by rail lines, it would have been a fraction of the cost to divert one of those lines and slap in a station.

One of the airports in scotland / north of england would seem to be ideal for hubbing, especially to north america as you're 400 miles closer to it at glasgow than you are at heathrow. It's frustrating having to fly edinburgh - london - us, you're flying back over the same ground you were flying over hours before. Guess rationalisation in the airline industry has knocked that for six though