HS2 - For or against?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenABF

If you factor in the cost of fuel then I guess that would be true, but the purchase of the car or rental of the car, then running costs associatied i.e. insurance, wear and tear, tax, mot etc.. it then looks quite competitive and is a fixed not variable cost.

---

but not every journey is practical by public transport so if you are going to drive to london (which i dont done it twice and drivers down there are loony) it tends to imply you already have a car so it will onl cost you fuel (and some small amount of additional wear and tear) and parking. It dosent help train fares are a knightmare anyway so its sometimes cheaper to get 2 tickets one from say doncaster to peterborough and one from peterborough to london where is the sense in that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenABF

If you factor in the cost of fuel then I guess that would be true, but the purchase of the car or rental of the car, then running costs associatied i.e. insurance, wear and tear, tax, mot etc.. it then looks quite competitive and is a fixed not variable cost.

---

If you consider the family car is used for many purposes (not just for travelling to London) I disagree with you. If I travelled every where by bus, train or taxi (if I really needed to) the car is easily going to pay itself off. It isn't just the actual costs which are important. An organisation (I forget the name) calculated that approx. 2 years or more of your life would be spent waiting for public transport. How is that going to grow the economy? The sooner you get to a job the sooner you generate income and pay taxes.

If you own a car there is no financial incentive to use public transport as you've pointed out but if you don't then the price can be competitive. Shouldn't really be that way I agree especially as more often than not the stations are miles away from where you need to be and the trains run at times that don't suite your needs. But more often than not fule is the only factor people cosider in the cost of journeys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael

I agree their train systems are excellent, speedy and affordable. Why didn't the British Government run such a project when the economy was growing every quarter and not declining every quarter (i.e a triple dip on the horizon)?

---

I hate to keep disagreeing with you but the Labour Government did propose this scheme during the good times. It just takes years to design and build thats all. We will probably be in our next boom and bust cycle by the time this is finished.

Infact all the political parties support this at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeMarchand

You're the one who was asking how to get people to use public transport! I'm just giving you the main reasons why people don't. None of which would seem to be likely to be improved by the HS2.

---

No, I'm not asking how to get people to use public transport. Why you think I asked that, I do not know. I'm asking how to improve what we've got. With our 2 main lines being at or near capacity, how do you improve reliability?

Adding more lines is expensive as I said. Adding some in some areas and then not others will just add bottlenecks.

There are two ways to do business -

Either stack them high and sell them cheap or sell them high and sell a few. The Government clearly have decided that increasing prices with inflation is going to help public transport. If it made financial sense I would use public transport, even though I have a car I own outright. It most cases it doesn't and running my own business I know so :)

@zag - Feel free to disagree, you're your own man :) If we all agreed life would certainly be boring wouldn't it? I agree Labour did propose it (I can't remember when in their 13 year term), but still, should it take years and years for politicians to mutually agree on such a project?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zag

Infact all the political parties support this at the moment.

---

then there must be something wrong with it

How about spending the 32 billion (and likely to double if other infrastructure projects are anything to go by) on bringing back the regional railways that were cut after Beeching. Improve the core rail network and send freight up off peak times to regional distribution depots getting the freight off the main roads. Another fast route and expensive route into London is not what we all want. Yes London is important and contributes 8% of GDP but the rest of the country contributes 92%, this is the real area for growth. It's unlikely the bulk of the public will be able to afford tickets on HS2, it simply doesn't add up now. I goto see family in Surrey from my home in Newcastle, the training for 3 of us is £300 return, plus the hassle of getting a toddler across London for a connection, it takes 5 hours. Driving takes the same time and costs £100 for diesel.

The London Metropolitan area generates 30% of the UK's GDP, not 8%, or if you limit it to London alone, its 20%.

The point of this line is not to help London! It is to help other cities. So, businesses don't just go "we have to be in London, because being anywhere else is too difficult as we can't carry out business easily with people in London", instead they can set up in Leeds or Birmingham and be able to get to London in a small amount of time.

I can't help but think that an awful lot of people are being very short-term about this. ie. 'people right now won't use it', well of course they won't, but then most people didn't use the original train systems when they were built!

And when counting up the cost of travel, make sure you include the other costs of your vehicles such as insurance, MOT, 'road tax', servicing, cleaning, parking, etc...

That £100 in fuel suddenly becomes quite a lot more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

The point of this line is not to help London! It is to help other cities. So, businesses don't just go "we have to be in London, because being anywhere else is too difficult as we can't carry out business easily with people in London", instead they can set up in Leeds or Birmingham and be able to get to London in a small amount of time.

---

1) By your logic, businesses could equally think "We no longer need a branch office as we can easily get to London".
2) Small amount of time? The journeys are not going to be that quicker. I don't think that the small decrease in time is going to result in offices springing up elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

The point of this line is not to help London! It is to help other cities. So, businesses don't just go "we have to be in London, because being anywhere else is too difficult as we can't carry out business easily with people in London", instead they can set up in Leeds or Birmingham and be able to get to London in a small amount of time.

---

Or everyone will still continue to work in London but HS2 will expand the commuter belt for the rich city businessmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

No, I'm not asking how to get people to use public transport. Why you think I asked that, I do not know.

---

I must have misread this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

If it were put in to the motorway system etc... it has been shown that this doesn't work properly as the roads just fill up very quickly again - we need to get more people on public transport.

So, ideas?

---

Sorry to seem like I'm singling you out, but:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

The point of this line is not to help London! It is to help other cities. So, businesses don't just go "we have to be in London, because being anywhere else is too difficult as we can't carry out business easily with people in London", instead they can set up in Leeds or Birmingham and be able to get to London in a small amount of time.

<snip>

And when counting up the cost of travel, make sure you include the other costs of your vehicles such as insurance, MOT, 'road tax', servicing, cleaning, parking, etc...

That £100 in fuel suddenly becomes quite a lot more.

---

I'm sure I read that in France it just led to more growth in Paris as people set up business there (more money around, easier to get to) and similarly in (I think) Spain.

As for car costs, as someone pointed out earlier, the costs are normally spread out over multiple journeys so whilst journeys do cost more than just fuel, the "extras" aren't normally that much extra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeMarchand

I must have misread this:

---

Yes, as you took it out of context. The context of the post was asking for elaboration on your 'cheaper, more reliable, more convenient' post. My comment there is one of 'expanding the road system is not conducive to improving travel'.

Quote:

---

Sorry to seem like I'm singling you out, but:

---

Quote:

---

I'm sure I read that in France it just led to more growth in Paris as people set up business there (more money around, easier to get to) and similarly in (I think) Spain.

---

I've not seen any evidence of that - no-one has published any that I've seen anyway! And the media would've usually jumped all over it.

Quote:

---

As for car costs, as someone pointed out earlier, the costs are normally spread out over multiple journeys so whilst journeys do cost more than just fuel, the "extras" aren't normally that much extra.

---

Car cost? Reasonable second hand car, £3k. Insurance? £600 a year. MOT £60 + whatever extra it costs. Tax, £150 a year. Cleaning, £30 a year if you want to look after it. Servicing, £500 a year maybe?

So suddenly, that cost isn't so small!

Personally, I couldn't give a monkey's either way.

By the time it is "delivered" the opposition of the day will be calling the government out for the massive waste of public money. The government will be saying how important it is for the country etc etc etc.....and on it goes.

Public transport will NEVER* be the preferred mode of transport whilst it remains so expensive.**


*NEVER = in my foreseeable lifetime

** This IS just opinion and NOT fact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

Car cost? Reasonable second hand car, £3k. Insurance? £600 a year. MOT £60 + whatever extra it costs. Tax, £150 a year. Cleaning, £30 a year if you want to look after it. Servicing, £500 a year maybe?

So suddenly, that cost isn't so small!

---

quick calculation including cost of fuel as two grand over the year. (I divided car cost by 10 assuming you own the car for 10 years.) so £3640 total a year, divide that by 10000 miles a year = £0.364 a mile.

It costs me £1.60 one way into town on a bus, 1.5 miles away = £1.066 a mile, so 10000 miles a year = £10666.666

Either my maths is wrong or your argument that public transport is cheaper is wrong. I think it's the latter.