HS2, is it right for the UK?

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

They've been discussing this on other fora. Does look better. It's more to do with connecting Scotland and the North of England. Which would be better for everybody. I'd bypass London and connect all points north with the continent, if I had my way.

Of course as the current political system is all about growing the SouthEast, don't expect much support from central government.

We nearly had this a century ago.

We're like a medieval theme park compared with Europe.

had you consider flying between the north and europe?

it's available right now: no need to wait 20 years

kabayiri

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

I think people underestimate the effect changing technology will have on travel alternatives.

I was in a technology demonstrator not so long ago sponsored by a global networks company.

It was, put simply, staggeringly impressive. It was constructed so that you felt you were sharing a room with other people, although they were hundreds of miles away. Things like 3D printers will allow the sharing of physical objects for prototype demonstrations too.

Telecommuting is also very adaptable, if your main customer base decides to up sticks from say London to Frankfurt, for example.

Telecommuting will become more widely used, whether we like it or not. A £300 peak train ticket from Manchester to London is getting to be an expensive option for those peripheral 'nicer in person' journeys.

Straw poll : if a HS2 journey were just 25% more expensive, would £400 a journey revolutionise your work pattern? It'd do nothing for me as a freelancer in truth.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.

kabayiri wrote: »

I think people underestimate the effect changing technology will have on travel alternatives.

I was in a technology demonstrator not so long ago sponsored by a global networks company.

It was, put simply, staggeringly impressive. .

It was also probably staggeringly expensive.

Videoconferencing has been widely available to companies for decades, and telephone calls have been widely available for longer than that.

Yet people still choose to meet in person.

No matter how good the technology, it's never going to be the same as meeting in person, shaking hands, being able to pick up the tiny cues from expressions, body language, minor changes in vocal tone, etc, that an artificial representation of someone on a screen is not able to accurately portray.

I like videoconferencing, we use it a lot to replace phone calls, as it's often a better form of communicating than speaking through a handset.

But it hasn't replaced meetings and business travel in the last few decades it's been available, and I don't see that it will in the next few decades at least.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.

shortchanged wrote: »

Why has there got to be more airport capacity in the SE?

Because that's where the demand for more flights is.

Is there not a case for building a large airport in say the Bristol/Wales border area which would cover quite large areas of population. Close the existing airports at Bristol and Cardiff and have one large airport in that area.

If anything, I'd suggest the opposite.

More small airports allowing more point-to-point direct flights rather than through hubs.

The road and rail network in much of this country is really poor, the closer we can get people to their destinations, the more productive they can be.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

had you consider flying between the north and europe?

it's available right now: no need to wait 20 years

I don't live up there any more, I used to drive back to meet family and get cheap flights to the continent from Glasgow but flights aren't so cheap now.


The economics of developing major hubs in the north is covered elsewhere ( for example here)

Liviing in the south I prefer getting the train to Paris than flying. I've taken trains round France and Germany and been really impressed by how they link the countries together.

I'm deeply unimpressed by how much investment is used to benefit London. I'd much prefer to see the rest of the UK get better connected and I'm not sure that joining them up to London won't just benefit London at their expense.

The equivalent of the fast trains that connect Cologne, Munich and Hamburg are what we need to concentrate on not feeders to Berlin.

The fact that none of the UK's cities is quite as developed as those three cities is part of the problem and the reason for connecting them better in the first place.

BertieUK

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

zagubov wrote: »

I'm deeply unimpressed by how much investment is used to benefit London. I'd much prefer to see the rest of the UK get better connected and I'm not sure that joining them up to London won't just benefit London at their expense.

The equivalent of the fast trains that connect Cologne, Munich and Hamburg are what we need to concentrate on not feeders to Berlin.

The fact that none of the UK's cities is quite as developed as those three cities is part of the problem and the reason for connecting them better in the first place.

I agree fully that the cost of this venture would only give gain to a portion of our country, and where would we find the money to invest in a programme that the estimated cost is changing every time that we read about it.

GingerSte

Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.

BertieUK wrote: »

I agree fully that the cost of this venture would only give gain to a portion of our country, and where would we find the money to invest in a programme that the estimated cost is changing every time that we read about it.

There aren't many infrastructure projects that would benefit the entire country evenly. You could use the same argument about fixing potholes in Devon not helping people in Glasgow.

As I understand it, the cost has only changed once, from £30 billion to £42 billion. This is after the addition of £13 billion in contingency allowance, dictated by the Treasury. Other figures have been bandied about, but by other parties with their own agendas (mainly trying to stop HS2 by hook or by crook).

The budget has now been set at this £42 billion. If costs rise above this, then savings will have to be made on the project through changing/eliminating parts of the scope.

BertieUK

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

In truth all of our regional railway systems would benefit from regular improvements on structures that are presently in use, this would be a more sensible investment rather than looking to spend billions that only benefit parts of the country and anger the remainder.

When did a set budget ever realistically work.

CLAPTON

GingerSte wrote: »

The budget has now been set at this £42 billion. If costs rise above this, then savings will have to be made on the project through changing/eliminating parts of the scope.

which document says that then?
how will that be enforced in 5/6 years time when we would be totally committed.

shortchanged_2

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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Because that's where the demand for more flights is.



If anything, I'd suggest the opposite.

More small airports allowing more point-to-point direct flights rather than through hubs.

The road and rail network in much of this country is really poor, the closer we can get people to their destinations, the more productive they can be.

I did suggest the reasons for this at an earlier point. The fact that these smaller airports have a poorer choice of international flights and the costs are so much more. It's effectively a competition issue because these airports simply can't compete with the level of traffic the London airports can supply.

I would be in favour of Gatwick size airports in the north and the South West.

I'm sure most people in the UK would much rather have an airport closer to them and easily accessible instead of having to travel half way across the country to catch a flight. The prices of small regional airports often make them an unattractive option for many hence why the demand at the London airports is so high.