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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
HS2, is it right for the UK?
Comments
-
Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.shortchanged wrote: »As others have stated with the advancements in technologies over the coming years surely the need for actual face to face meetings can be reduced..
We use video conferencing a lot instead of phone calls.
It doesn't replace real world meetings very well though.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I don't have much of an opinion on this particular project.
I'll almost certainly never use it, but I'm sure many millions will.
But in general terms, more infrastructure = good.
Our current outdated infrastructure is inadequate, almost embarrassingly so.
We should be investing in all sorts of things, more roads, more rail, more airports, more broadband, more power generating capacity, etc.
Not always, can just be a waste of money.
I would see power generation as more important than a railway though.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I don't have much of an opinion on this particular project.
I'll almost certainly never use it, but I'm sure many millions will.
But in general terms, more infrastructure = good.
Our current outdated infrastructure is inadequate, almost embarrassingly so.
We should be investing in all sorts of things, more roads, more rail, more airports, more broadband, more power generating capacity, etc.
Is there any arguement about not wanting more capacity on public transport between London and the North?
The issue seems to be whether a new (incidentally high speed) rail line is the best way to provide it.I think....0 -
Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.Not always, can just be a waste of money.
Pretty rare in the UK.
If anything, I reckon we set the bar too high for new projects, replace/upgrade existing infrastructure too slowly, and don't show enough vision with new technologies.I would see power generation as more important than a railway though.
I don't think we have to choose.
If we need both then build both.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
It would mean years of delays/diversions/cancellations on the current line as each section is upgraded.
As for cost, it may just add a higher tier, so what as long as it pays for itself.
Likewise if you can't afford it get the 'normal line', if you can't afford that get the national express or megabus.
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.Is there any arguement about not wanting more capacity on public transport between London and the North?
No idea.
I use the train maybe once or twice every five years or so.The issue seems to be whether a new (incidentally high speed) rail line is the best way to provide it.
If you're going to build new rail, it seems only logical to make it high speed rail, no reason we should lag so far behind the rest of the World in that regard.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.shortchanged wrote: »As others have stated with the advancements in technologies over the coming years surely the need for actual face to face meetings can be reduced.
It would also be better for the environment which I'm sure is a major concern for you enviroman.
I'd be happy to take a train rather than a plane for environmental issues as well as the other issues already mentioned.
Out of interest, how often do you use the current intercity train to London? When you are there, are you there on business or pleasure?
Be honest to thyself....0 -
No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Pretty rare in the UK.
If anything, I reckon we set the bar too high for new projects, replace/upgrade existing infrastructure too slowly, and don't show enough vision with new technologies.
I don't think we have to choose.
If we need both then build both.
Err, NHS IT system. Cost billions and never worked.0 -
No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.I'd be happy to take a train rather than a plane for environmental issues as well as the other issues already mentioned.
Out of interest, how often do you use the current intercity train to London? When you are there, are you there on business or pleasure?
Be honest to thyself....
Never for business, occasionally for pleasure, find the service fine apart from some overcrowding issues, but surely this can be sorted out in some other way.0 -
No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.The problem with HS2 is its designed to fill a need, and that need isnt improving train travel, its "legacy" for politicians.
My 5pm train home ALWAYS* sits still for 10 minutes waiting for a delayed inter city train to over take. 200m of track further down the line would allow my train to keep going and pull in when the inter city catches up. Or perhaps better track or station capacity further back would allow the intercity to be on time.
That would cost pennies compared to HS2.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands of small projects like that could be done for the cost of HS2, and the improvement to the rail network would be monumentally greater.
But no one would be able to point to it and say, "I did that" in their memoirs, or their next civil service grade review.
Isnt it an EU diktat anyway?
So whine all you want, it'll be built.
*Every single time I've caught that train0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards