HS2 - For or against?

[tmcd35]

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?

 

And yet everyone agrees that house prices are too high and nobody can afford to get on the housing ladder...

[zag]

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.

 

Actually having used France's Rail system extensively a couple of years back, this is not really true. Its made it very easy to do business and encourages tourism all over the country.

 

Germany is very similar as well, its incredibly easy to get from city to city quickly using the fast trains. Their financial centre is Frankfurt not the capital Berlin.

 

Their train systems are excellent in both countries.

[BenABF]

 

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.

 

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.

[LeMarchand]

And yet everyone agrees that house prices are too high and nobody can afford to get on the housing ladder...

 

Apart from the landlords...

 

Their train systems are excellent in both countries.

 

Aren't both of them nationalised?

[Michael]

Actually having used France's Rail system extensively a couple of years back, this is not really true. Its made it very easy to do business and encourages tourism all over the country.

 

Germany is very similar as well, its incredibly easy to get from city to city quickly using the fast trains. Their financial centre is Frankfurt not the capital Berlin.

 

Their train systems are excellent in both countries.

 

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)?

 

For example is spending money on fixing the M6 in the midlands going to be more constructive pound for pound spent in the local economy?

 

I refuse to use the M6 Toll. I pay my road tax which is why the M6 Toll always looks empty. Clearly many drivers also agree.

[sted]

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

[Michael]

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.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Michael

[BenABF]

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.

[zag]

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.

[localzuk]

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.

[Michael]

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?

[sted]

Infact all the political parties support this at the moment.

 

then there must be something wrong with it

[pbainbridge]

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.

[localzuk]

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.

Edited January 29, 2013 by localzuk

[sparkeh]

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.

[Robz]

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.

[LeMarchand]

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:

 

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:

 

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.

 

 

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.

[localzuk]

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'.

 

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

 

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.

 

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!

[aerospacemango]

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

[Robz]

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.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Robz

[Earthling]

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.

[zag]

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.

[Earthling]

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.

[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?

[zag]

Great article here on the BBC

 

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