HS2 - For or against?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

Ok, those saying put the money into existing infrastructure, how would you suggest that is done?

The West Coast Main Line is almost at capacity last time I checked, for example, so improving that would mean adding more rails there instead - especially if you want to add more freight to the system. That'd cost more than HS2 anyway, due to it going through cities/built up areas where there isn't any expansion room.

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?

---

Restart BSF, but do it properly this time.

Embark on a plan to build enough homes, council and private, to finally end the housing shortage altogether, for a while, at least.

Even £30 billion on fusion reactor R&D would be better spent than on a new railway.

In fact, that's where I'd put it........homes, schools and fusion reactor technology.

Also its not 32 billion in one big lump sum.

One of the reasons its going to take 20 years is that the cost is then spread out.

We are currently paying 2 billion a year for cross rail, that will finish soon and the 2 billion a year is then simply moved on to HS2 construction.

Basically this is cost neutral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sted

now i dont have the facts to prove this but i would suspect that most people who commute are going say doncaster-leeds,sheffield-leeds etc relatively short distances so hs2 will only Peripherally improve the situation for the majority of commuters anyway


i dont get why when councils sold off housing stock they werent made to reinvest that cash in new houses from the start that should of kept house prices at reasonable levels and of averted the problems we have with lack og affordable houseing from occuring in the first place

---

The money gained from sale of council stock was grabbed, don't know any other way of saying it, by central government and put into a huge 'contingency' fund. Don't know what 'contingency' they were thinking of but, if I remember rightly, it reached a high of £7 billion. Far from being made to build more, councils weren't allowed to build more, except under extenuating circumstances. I seem to recall the rise and rise of Housing Associations at the same time.

You're right, the housing shortage in this country is deplorable, shocking and shameful. Especially as it's used primarily to keep house prices artificially at their current level.

Now, back to the railways.

What am I missing? 20 years to build a railway line?

What developments will we see over 20 years that will undoubtedly make this obsolete?

Great article here on the BBC

BBC News - HS2: 20 reasons why it can take 20 years to build a railway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CHR1S

What am I missing? 20 years to build a railway line?

What developments will we see over 20 years that will undoubtedly make this obsolete?

---

teleportation or a tad more realistic telecommuting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Earthling

The money gained from sale of council stock was grabbed, don't know any other way of saying it, by central government and put into a huge 'contingency' fund. Don't know what 'contingency' they were thinking of but, if I remember rightly, it reached a high of £7 billion. Far from being made to build more, councils weren't allowed to build more, except under extenuating circumstances. I seem to recall the rise and rise of Housing Associations at the same time.

You're right, the housing shortage in this country is deplorable, shocking and shameful. Especially as it's used primarily to keep house prices artificially at their current level.

Now, back to the railways.

---

Now....who would stand to gain the most from artificially high house prices?

Why...the very same people who will run the companies that will most likely be termed "preferred bidders" in any tendering process.

Quote:

---

What am I missing? 20 years to build a railway line?

What developments will we see over 20 years that will undoubtedly make this obsolete?

---

HSR2 will be obsolete in 10 years....Let alone 20!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

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'.

---

Still confused! "we need to get more people on public transport. So, ideas?" was posted before I posted my ideas on how to get people on to public transport. I still stand by my reasoning that to get people to use public systems, that's what you need to do. I don't know how to do it, but have my reservations that the HS2 is the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

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.

---

Sure this was mentioned on the news the other day, but as the only people a quick search threw up who backed this up appeared to be right wing US bloggers I'll have to let that one lie unless I can find something more reliable.

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!

---

@Robz beat me to it. (Though I'd shorten the length of ownership and try to walk that distance in to town when I have time).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robz

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeMarchand

Still confused! "we need to get more people on public transport. So, ideas?" was posted before I posted my ideas on how to get people on to public transport. I still stand by my reasoning that to get people to use public systems, that's what you need to do. I don't know how to do it, but have my reservations that the HS2 is the way.

---

Apologies. My mistake. However, the context is still important - we need people on public transport and people don't use it because its expensive, unreliable and inconvenient. So, the ideas part needs to counter those aspects.

I'd also like to point out a further problem with public transport...

It doesn't actually GO where I want it to!

For instance : Every day, I drive a 64 mile, round trip, to and from work. This takes me around 45-60mins each way depending on traffic.

To make the same journey on public transport would take me 2 1/2hrs or more EACH WAY! And there's the nub.... Public transport will NEVER* be convenient!

*Unless they build stops on EVERY street for buses, coaches and trains

Regarding getting people on public transport. I didn't learn to drive until I was in my late 20's mainly because I was living in London until my early 20's when most people learn to drive. Living in London, public transport is pretty much the only way to get about and I never saw the point in driving. Moving out to the sticks (Norwich) and suddenly buses come every half hour (max. every 15min) instead of being lined up one behind another. Now I drive everywhere because it just more convenient, regardless of cost. Public transport outside of London never seems to go were I want when I want.

When I go back to London I usually drive to the outskirts and switch back to public transport. That said though, thinking of train fares vs driving costs. I can get a one-way ticket to london for about £8, £12 first class, if I book in advance. The multistory in Romford costs about the same to park the car for the day...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aerospacemango

Now....who would stand to gain the most from artificially high house prices?

Why...the very same people who will run the companies that will most likely be termed "preferred bidders" in any tendering process.





HSR2 will be obsolete in 10 years....Let alone 20!

---

Actually...........everyone who owns their own home benefits from artifically high housing prices, not just the rich.

Whether your house is in Harpenden and worth £450,000 or if it's in Hartlepool and worth £45,000, the housing shortage keeps that value artificially high.

Obviously, no offence to those living in Hartlepool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

Apologies. My mistake. However, the context is still important - we need people on public transport and people don't use it because its expensive, unreliable and inconvenient.

---

Hey, at least we both agree on that!

Heading back to the other reasons that the HS2 is claimed to be a good idea, I've found what I think is a parliamentary report that suggests that the case for the HS2 improving the economy isn't that clear cut. I just skimmed it, but section 4 seemed quite relevant. Clicky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aerospacemango

I'd also like to point out a further problem with public transport...

---

Same problem here for work: 20 mins walk to a train station + 1/2 hour journey + 10 minute walk to my only school near a station. Takes 3/4 hour in car on a very bad day. Then I'd need to get to my other schools (10 minutes from each other by car) - who knows how long that would take? There used to be a bus that used a road that went from close to my house past most of my schools, but now I'd have to walk 1/2 hour to town, get the bus into the city centre and then another out again, plus change my hours to fit the bus timetable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Earthling

Actually...........everyone who owns their own home benefits from artifically high housing prices, not just the rich.

Whether your house is in Harpenden and worth £450,000 or if it's in Hartlepool and worth £45,000, the housing shortage keeps that value artificially high.

---

But while a drop in prices would hurt a lot of people (by causing negative equity - I've been there) if houses were cheaper for everyone then once that "bump in the road" had passed it would be a much more level playing field.

Not seen it so much recently, as the market is flat, but I was getting sick of seeing "affordable developments" covered in For Sale signs a few months after being sold as they'd all been bought by developers and a few months was all they needed to cash in and turn them into "not as affordable" properties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Earthling

Actually...........everyone who owns their own home benefits from artifically high housing prices, not just the rich.

Whether your house is in Harpenden and worth £450,000 or if it's in Hartlepool and worth £45,000, the housing shortage keeps that value artificially high.

Obviously, no offence to those living in Hartlepool.

---

it dosent really help anyone. the actual cost/value of a house is imo only an issue 2 times when you first buy and if you sell and never buy again the rest of the time only the difference matters. Even then in real terms my house is worth say 115k so what i cant spend that cash just means i owe the bank say 90k which atm wont be paid off for 30 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tmcd35

Regarding getting people on public transport. I didn't learn to drive until I was in my late 20's mainly because I was living in London until my early 20's when most people learn to drive. Living in London, public transport is pretty much the only way to get about and I never saw the point in driving. Moving out to the sticks (Norwich) and suddenly buses come every half hour (max. every 15min) instead of being lined up one behind another. Now I drive everywhere because it just more convenient, regardless of cost. Public transport outside of London never seems to go were I want when I want.

When I go back to London I usually drive to the outskirts and switch back to public transport. That said though, thinking of train fares vs driving costs. I can get a one-way ticket to london for about £8, £12 first class, if I book in advance. The multistory in Romford costs about the same to park the car for the day...

---

thats because tfl is so heavily tax funded by the whole country its cheap and plentiful if the rest of the country got the same £ per person spent on us as londoners it would be less of an issue

as to cars you can from peugeot for example "buy" a car for £140 a month and just pay that and petrol