HS2 - For or against?

[localzuk]

So, the govt have announced the next part of the HS2 line whilst telling NIMBYs to shut up in no uncertain terms.

 

People are discovering their homes are being labelled as zero value by mortgage lenders, and a number of homes are right in the path, including listed buildings.

 

What do we all think of it?

 

Should it go ahead because investment in infrastructure has been shown time and time again to be a massive boon for the economy? Or is that argument somewhat moot due to the fact it'll take them 20 years to build?

 

Personally, I'm of the view that it should be built. Not because it'll being the benefits the government think it will as soon as it opens, but because the longer term benefits of it - more rail capacity for a growing population. The current rail system was built in Victorian times, and it exists in a very different form now than it did then, but the general structure exists.

 

The amount of money that gets wasted is huge when it comes to government, but building something like this is a proper asset that will only grow in value over time.

[BassTech]

If it's done right then yes, brilliant.

 

But, this is England..... It will not be completed in time and it will be over budget. Oh, and I bet the ticket prices will be a joke!

[LeMarchand]

Against.

 

Not because it's a bad idea; I actually think that the stated reasons for it's construction make some sense (though I have read that similar projects elsewhere have shown that people in the less affluent regions end up travelling to the affluent ones to make money rather than people from the affluent regions travelling outwards to spread the wealth). I'm against it because it will be used as an excuse for Dave and George to grant big fat contracts to their mates funded by us, the tax payers. In addition, as far as I can tell, after we've paid for it the line will be run privately - so another mate makes all the money. George was comparing the project to the railway building in Victorian times, but those were built and financed by the people who were going to be making the money from the lines - not by the tax payer.

[sidewinder]

I'm all for more railway capacity but whilst I'm not exactly against this, I'm not hugely for it either.

 

It's going to take an absolute age to build, and in some cases doesn't seem to reduce the journey time by a huge amount (though I am thinking of journey times from London only) eg London to Newcastle in 138 rather than 172 minutes...doesn't seem earth shattering to me considering how much it will cost. That said London to Manchester in an hour or so is a big improvement.

 

Also surely once it is built, a two tier system will exist, the new line will be very expensive, and the current lines become the cheaper alternative, leaving no real benefit for most people? Though if they are planning to divert all passenger trains onto the new line, fair enough. And because it's Britain, and train travel is stupidly expensive, how will it deter people from flying instead? Unless they're just banking on the fact air travel will have become much more expensive by 2030

[Danp]

Go for it, compo for the home owners and farmer. Country needs it.

[glennda]

For me - doesn't really make a difference being down South - if I ever travel to the north I tend to drive anyway.

[broc]

Against the idea; Taxpayers right across the UK will be paying to improve the travelling time for a relatively small number of business people who will use the service & it will allow companies based in London to close down branch offices in northern cities & support them from London. A better idea would be to increase freight capacity nationally & build more freight depots to allow local distribution and get lorries off the trunk roads.

[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?

[sted]

For me - doesn't really make a difference being down South - if I ever travel to the north I tend to drive anyway.

 

its a nice idea in theory (but as above i tend to drive anyway)

 

IF they renationalise or at least get bus/train companies to work together so we can have some sort of accountable intergrated network (thats reliable) then its good but if its just being done cos they can its pointless. Rail round here isnt that bad except the rolling stock and reliability (last time i went to leeds from doncaster for a training course in the 5 days i went the 1st train diddnt arrive on time once missing the connection, from a brief chat with the guard that train is always like that as the timetable is over optomistic) the south east seem to get the new trains we end up with rotbox single carriage dmus that should of been scrapped decades ago.

 

im also not sure the planned route makes much sense nor having sheffields station at murderhell yes there is plenty of land but it then means a change of trains and await then another journey.

[nawbus]

Both West Coast and East Coast Main lines are pretty much at capacity now and because of the nature of their building it is extremely difficult to increase the capacity.

Improvements have been made by improving the infrastructure and signalling and by having faster trains, but there is only so much that can be done to the existing lines.

Because the lines are shared between fast inter city trains, slower regional trains and freight then this also has an impact. You can only go as fast as what is in front of you!

HS2 will cost a lot and may not be pretty in places, but it's better than the equivalent motorway!

[LeMarchand]

we need to get more people on public transport.

 

So, ideas?

 

Make it cheaper than driving, more reliable and as convenient as possible.

 

I don't think that the HS2 will encourage use of public transport apart from those who need to get to its limited stops in hurry and who can afford what is likely to be a steep price.

[localzuk]

Make it cheaper than driving, more reliable and as convenient as possible.

 

I don't think that the HS2 will encourage use of public transport apart from those who need to get to its limited stops in hurry and who can afford what is likely to be a steep price.

 

Making it cheaper - how?

Making it more reliable - how?

Convenient - how?

 

Saying those things is fine and dandy, but without thoughts as to how to do them they're not really gonna do anything. At least with HS2 they are increasing capacity which potentially means those people who travel from those far away places can get to London and back easier meaning more capacity on the trains that remain (so less standing up). It could also mean that more freight could be shifted there if actual services can be removed etc...

[sparkeh]

Just to be selfish for moment; I live in Leicestershire which will be ploughed through, homes and businesses destroyed and the Roxhill Freight Depot which will create 6000 jobs will probably be cancelled.

We don't even get a stop. The closest is in the middle of nowhere in Totan (midway between Nottingham and Derby).

This just to shave a few mins of journey time?

 

We have been promised an upgrade to the Midland Mainline for years, finally investing in this will improve journey times and increase capacity.

[rad]

Against

 

Living in Hillingdon it will wipe out a fair few houses, cross roads, and take out my OH work which "may" relocate all for a business model that doesnt make sense with the number of passengers they are forecasting. There are many white elephants out there, this may be one of them.

[HarryMonkey]

I was listening to a local radio interview last night and they were saying that much of the investment by new companies creating new sites and new jobs is being diverted/cancelled/put on hold whilst HS2 is finalised and is likely to be cancelled and moved to other areas all together.

 

Personally I don't see the need for it. If our major cites were further away as they are in other EU countries I could see the need to cut down the journey times but all we will be doing is creating another layer of elite transport that will be priced solely at the business user but paid for by the tax payer. Am I really going to want to spend an extra god knows how much for a ticket to skim 20 minutes off a journey, no, I don't think so.

[sted]

Making it more reliable - how?

Making it cheaper - how?

Convenient - how?

 

more reliable how - if companies don’t achieve reliability targets the get no subsidy’s till they do. Proper maintenance not quick fixes invest the cash to do a proper job in getting the network up to standard and keep investing enough to keep it there/upgrade as appropriate. Where room allows have more parallel lines and id there are say 4 lines in parallel only trains capable (and with room etc.) to do say 100mph can use them keep fast trains away from slow trains and should improve timekeeping. Remove various bottlenecks by whatever means necessary

If they really wanted people on public transport they could not charge the companies that run them fuel tax/road tax on their vehicles (obviously with strings attached)

public transport in general think about where stops are and routes go there are some mightily stupidly placed bus stops/stations out there.

[LeMarchand]

Making it cheaper - how?

Making it more reliable - how?

Convenient - how?

 

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.

[tmcd35]

I can't help having the same first thought I had with Trident. How many new social houses can we build with that money? I can't think of anything that would be better for the country overall than serious investment in housing stock, which no government since has been willing to do since Thatcher solid it off with everything else.

 

I'm also not 100% sure I understand what this new rail line is supposed to achieve? I'm sure if getting from Manchester to London quickly was that important the air fair would be cheaper?

 

If the money has to be spent on the railways then I'd vote for renationalising them first.

[sted]

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.

 

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 can't help having the same first thought I had with Trident. How many new social houses can we build with that money? I can't think of anything that would be better for the country overall than serious investment in housing stock, which no government since has been willing to do since Thatcher solid it off with everything else.

 

I'm also not 100% sure I understand what this new rail line is supposed to achieve? I'm sure if getting from Manchester to London quickly was that important the air fair would be cheaper?

 

If the money has to be spent on the railways then I'd vote for renationalising them first.

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

Edited January 29, 2013 by sted

[Geoff]

Some people are forgetting their history. We already had this line, the Victorians had the foresight to build it. However in 1963 Mr Beeching decided it wasn't needed any more. So here we are, repeating ourselves.

[zag]

Having visited many other countries such as Germany, France and China who have this kind of infrastructure and used their services, its a complete no brainer to me. Just get on an build it.

 

People who moan and complain simply have no ambition. Its a sad trait in the British Psyche.

 

And as for "ruining the landscapes of Britain" well has anyone seen the so called "devastation" existing railways cause? No...? In reality they actually cause minimal visual impact on the surrounding area.

 

Creating 100,000 jobs also seems like a good idea to me, cant really argue with that one.

 

Complaints about aditional pollution also cause me a little bother, wouldn't this mean far less car journeys?

 

There was a great documentary on the BBC recently about some of the villages who opposed the building of the M25 some 40 years ago. They interviewed all the protesters (who were now much older) about it and they seemed thoroughly embarrassed about the whole thing. These were the people who chained themselves to fences, and marched on downing street in their thousands. In-fact most of them had changed their minds and realized that the new motorway had brought prosperity to their villages and easy access. Every single one said in restrospect the motorway had been a good thing.

[BenABF]

Some people are forgetting their history. We already had this line, the Victorians had the foresight to build it. However in 1963 Mr Beeching decided it wasn't needed any more. So here we are, repeating ourselves.

Correct and with the great lack of foresight most of the old route has been developed over so now we are faced with situation we have now at a great cost.

[tmcd35]

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

 

I seem to have had this conversation a lot recently. Was talking to my brother about the same a couple of days ago. And the last Question Time followed a similar theme. Seems the IMF think Osbourne is now wrong to continue he's OTT austerity measures and what Britain really needs right now is some infrastructure spending. When this came up on QT someone in the audience mentioned money being wasted on a nuclear defense we'd never use.

 

When I was talking with my brother we were discussing the policy of charging council tenants for each extra room they don't use. A policy my brother was defending. But people like my mum, a single person on JSA in a 2 bed, get's hit quiet hard by.

 

HS2 is just another example on money being funneled in to expensive projects that will make little or no long term gain in my view. Investing heavily in replenishing housing stock would:

 

bring down unemployment, especially youth unemployment (someones got to build them)

Less unemployment means more taxes revenue and less benefit expenditure

More people working is good for the high street, money burns holes in pockets

The 1.8m waiting list for social housing can be reduced

private rents and house prices drop because of the influx of new homes on the market

more people can then afford to buy their own homes

This silly policy of forcing people into smaller homes or charging for "rooms they don't use" can be dropped.

 

On the other hand we can get from London to Manchaster in about an hour which might be good if Oasis reform...

Edited January 29, 2013 by tmcd35

[Michael]

Looking at other countries such as France - building a high speed line has done nothing for their economy; especially now when it's needed most. France's problems are just as problematic as ours if not worse.

 

The Government will tell you it's easier to do business across the country. I think it will make it easier to drive more business into London. If anyone can explain to me otherwise then I'm all ears

 

I'm also struggling to understand why having a new speedy train line or lines is going to suddenly created thousands of jobs out of thin air. Are these jobs specifically to create/design/maintain the line itself or are these jobs going to be created in the surrounding areas where the train lines pass, mostly in the middle of the countryside...

 

If HS2 is such a great idea and businesses/investors think it's a good idea why isn't the Government encouraging businesses to invest instead of it all being created/designed using public money?

 

The last I checked, it's cheaper to drive down to London from Birmingham rather than buying a train ticket. Unless the Government get the pricing right it just isn't going to work as intended.

[LeMarchand]

private rents and house prices drop because of the influx of new homes on the market

 

Could this be why there isn't that investment?

 

On the other hand we can get from London to Manchaster in about an hour which might be good if Oasis reform...

 

Oasis reform? I'm definitely against it if those whiney prats get back together.