Hs2 - Soon To Be Here

[Bazile]

For those of you wondering why the HS2 project will take 20 years to complete - here is an explanation
Some experts though , think that 20 years is a ridiculous period of time and that it could be completed much sooner

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21231044

The stated costs is 32 billion

So , i suppose contractors will put their bids in - the costs in the winning bids to be subject to upwards change as the years come and go

Do you like me think that the taxpayer will probably end up forking out for like 50 billion ?

What do you feel about that ?

[emmie]

that it won't be 50 billion but more, that it won't take 20 years but a lot longer, that more people will lose homes, businesses than they anticipated, that no one will truly benefit, as in 20 years time we won't need it, or it will already be out of date. Some of the linked stations make no sense either.
That it will go through because it will look like the coalition are seen to be doing something, but in the longer term they may not be in power after the next election, so Labour if they are in, might well veto the whole plan.

[jake-the-peg]

Doubt it Em

The idea was first mooted under a labour Government and Ed Milliband is backing it.

I actually was rather surprised that David Cameron didn't axe it in the cuts

[VHG]

>>>as in 20 years time we won't need it,

Good job the people who built the first canals, or the first railways, or the first motorways, did not think like that.

If they had we may all still be travelling around on the muddy unmade roads we had a few hundred years ago.

[pdq1]

In 20 years time with the current rate of progress we will all be flying in noiseless planes that use very little runway space. So why can't the well heeled choose this method rather than desecrating the countryside.

[emmie]

please note, its not the well heeled who will lose out but many not so well heeled, this class nonsense really should be put to bed.
If Milliband is in favour where were they proposing to get the money..

[emmie]

railways weren't originally built to accommodate people but goods, it was only when the rail company bosses realised just how much money could be made by carrying passengers, after all they had pumped millions into the railway system, so needed much needed capital to keep it all going. There is such a load of pap written about how it's only the well off, the nimbys will lose out, no it isn't, if some care to look at the route, and see exactly where it's going.
Any number of business leaders have already expressed their surprise that some lines won't be going to some places, cities, add in the points made that it might be more beneficial for people coming to the capital, as opposed to people, businesses going north, which is why some have expressed the opinion that it is an expensive folly, white elephant.

[mushroom25]

there's no doubt that the UK's transport infrastructure is a bit broken and, should the government decide it's got £32m to spend, using it on transport will make a big impact to the business community as well as society as a whole. But only if it's appropriately targeted.

Nearly everything we buy travels by truck. The logistics system in the UK is based on hub and spoke distribution depots from which the delivery drivers make journeys that can all (in theory) be accomplished in a day. However in the last 2 years congestion has got so bad that officially some destinations are now out of reach; this can only get worse.

The same £32m provisionally allocated to HS2 could build 300 miles of new motorway, or upgrade and widen 1000 miles of existing motorway, and still have enough left over for those troublesome safety-related schemes, like the M1/M6/A14 junction. So doing would benefit many more areas of UK society than spending it on a "Politician Express" trainset.

[emmie]

agreed.

[modeller]

pdq1 Please explain :
In 20 years time with the current rate of progress we will all be flying in noiseless planes that use very little runway space#

We are talking about large numbers of people ( 100,000s ) as can be carried by rail.
Therefore we will need large numbers of large planes who will need plenty of runway. Where are you going to put all the airports ? We can't cope now , let alone in 20 yrs time. These airports you want will have to be built in your countryside which you are trying to protect. Each airport affects areas 20 odd miles from the airport itself, and the more airports you have the more these areas overlap.

[Hopkirk]

Why can't everyone just use the hoverboards we were promised?

[modeller]

mushroom. It has been found , doing what you suggest, does not help congestion in the long run.
What happens is that more and more people use the roads and we are back to where we started. We have been doing exactly what you propose for years. Which may be what we wanted/needed but it has not stopped our main congestion problems.
Even where bypasses have helped small towns it isn't long before drivers start going through the towns because of bypass congestion.

[mushroom25]

modeller, whilst the UK transport economy remains so squarely road-focused
(shopping centres only reachable by car, new business centres located next to motorway intersections miles from towns, 95% of long distance freight consigned by truck, etc, etc)
the only realistic solution is a programme of road building and improvement. Any alternative would require a radical re-think of the way transport is undertaken in the UK - which would cost loads and would fall outside the scope of any 4-year plan devised by our politicians, who seek only to appease vested interests until they get elected again.

[LazyGun]

The arguments will run and run. I would take the view that both the road network and the railway system are in need of some infrastructure upgrades, to take into account both present and projected future needs.

The rail network, especially around London, needs some major investment.

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/high_speed_railway_hs2_train_capacity-28742

And the road networks are definitely in need of help. There are still regular tailbacks, queues on jams on the M6 between Birmingham and Manchester; the A14 virtually from the A1 our to the east is often a bottleneck, and I am sure there are many more examples. These are not new issues either; They have been there for decades.

The UKs transport infrastructure is in need of some serious investment. Whether HS2 is the right way to go about improving things is a different story, but I for one think that improving the links between Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester - and of course with London is a good thing.

I used to travel around in Germany quite a lot on the trains, and they seemed to make pretty extensive use of double decker carriages - not something we see here - I imagine this has something to do with tunnels etc? But such initiatives should be given proper consideration....

[modeller]

mushroom if as you say 95% of freight is already carried by road how will more roads change that ? If shopping and business centres are already served by our road system , how would more roads alter that ? I don't understand what you are trying to do. What does this mean ?
#the only realistic solution is a programme of road building and improvement.#

[dave50]

Now the route has been announced, there are many houses on or very near this route which nobody will now buy and are almost worthless. How are these people to be compensated?

[mushroom25]

Dave, I think this might answer your question:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21248717
house value = £0. "Market Value" Compensation = £0.