HS2 update...concern it may not happen? [get the flags out]

[Archie_tect]

"Sir John Armitt has added his voice to concerns over the future of HS2 by admitting that there is a “risk that it won’t happen” as the business case for the scheme comes under intense scrutiny." as reported in a Construction Newsletter...

Let's hope the concerns continue to get louder and louder... the day that gets scrapped is the day I appreciate that democracy works despite the 'in camera' wooing of the government and the shenannigans of investment brokers.

 

[morrisman]

Since it will run within 400 yards of my back garden (albeit in a tunnel) I for one will be quite glad if it doesn't happen*. A lot of work has gone into scrutinising the business case and it does not seem to stack up.

*Think it will have no actual effect on me as I shall be long dead before it happens.

 

[Melonfish]

the money that they would use for HS2 would be far better spent repairing and improving existing infrastructure this is quite clear.
HS2 will only be used by a select few not by the masses they claim and boy does it carve up the landscape!

 

[Brains]

from a European view, we have less than 100 miles of TGV track in this county.
Even Belgium, a county many of us have cycled from end to end in a single day, has many miles than we do.
we need to get our rail infrastructure at least to where the rest of Europe was 50 years ago.
TGV trains will not move much off the roads, but they have the ability to totally decimate the short haul air and ship transportation market

 

[EltonFrog]

The overground railways should be abolished, they are outmoded, filthy, inefficient and expensive. Convert one half of all the tracks to dedicated cycle lanes / and the other half to road going freight. All the other railway related real estate as brown fill homes, offices, business parks and park & ride hubs.


No don't thank me, I'm here to help.

 

[Archie_tect]

I don't have a problem with new infrastructure and a new joined up network nor the cost of one... I do have a problem with:
-the inappropriate business case for a single route,
-the procurement of it,
-the fact it achieves little considering how much it is forecast to be costing [not ignoring who'll get the money and the fact that the price will effectively double over the next 5 years],
-it is a dead-end starting from the wrong place, as a sop to compromise and fudging
-it doesn't connect up,
-it is ill conceived and doesn't address rapid transport between conurbations.
That's enough to start with...

 

[Archie_tect]

Yayyy, lets pander to the motorists rather than investing in infrastructure that will help take traffic off the roads...

LET'S NOT.

 

[Arch]

Of course, if there were fewer heavy vehicles on the road there'd be less damage. Now, how could we achieve that? What about moving freight from road to rail, which HS2 will help with?

Will it? I'll admit to not paying too much attention, but I haven't heard anyone claiming a big freight use for it. It'll be dedicated to people travelling on expenses, with perhaps one cattle class carriage for those only able to afford a couple of hundred quid for a ticket.

Spend the money on improving the rail system we have!

 

[mcshroom]

the money that they would use for HS2 would be far better spent repairing and improving existing infrastructure this is quite clear.
HS2 will only be used by a select few not by the masses they claim and boy does it carve up the landscape!

Whereas the M40 is so unobtrusive

 

[ThinAir]

I totally agree, what about fixing the current transport infrastructure (f***ing great potholes in our roads for one) before splashing out on major, unaffordable schemes that will only benefit a small part of the country.

This.

I'm far enough away from London as it is. I don't need it "bringing closer".

Rocky just PM'd me though.... Says when your done with your construction newsletter, could you let him have it? He wanted me ask you via PM so as not to embarrass himself...

EDIT: Oops

 

[Lance Jack]

I live close (about 500m) to the HS1, London to Europe http://highspeed1.co.uk/. When this was planned it was received pretty much as the HS2 has been. There where protests how it would spoil rural Kent, people came up with every possible argument against it. But it was one of those things that not matter what was said or done it was going to be built. I live North West Kent so the line went through some quarries and chalk pits. It also followed very close to the M20 and M2/A2. Most of the line is in a cutting so although I am close I don't really hear it or see it. I can now get to central London in twenty minutes instead of fifty five, Lille in France is an hour away, Paris is two, all at a cost. The roads are just as busy as before, if not worse. For the HS1 it's passengers only, no freight is carried.
Just wanted to show what HS1 is like. I don't live by the planned HS2 and don't really know the route or how it will effect property or individuals.

 

[dellzeqq]

I don't have a problem with new infrastructure and a new joined up network nor the cost of one... I do have a problem with:
-the inappropriate business case for a single route,
-the procurement of it,
-the fact it achieves little considering how much it is forecast to be costing [not ignoring who'll get the money and the fact that the price will effectively double over the next 5 years],
-it is a dead-end starting from the wrong place, as a sop to compromise and fudging
-it doesn't connect up,
-it is ill conceived and doesn't address rapid transport between conurbations.
That's enough to start with...

it's a question of what you get for the money. The French are just about to put down a 200 mph 200 mile line for £8bn. HS2 will apparently cost £42bn. Why?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/03/peter-mandelson-hs2-epiphany-tipped-balance

 

[srw]

Since it will run within 400 yards of my back garden (albeit in a tunnel) I for one will be quite glad if it doesn't happen*. A lot of work has gone into scrutinising the business case and it does not seem to stack up.

*Think it will have no actual effect on me as I shall be long dead before it happens.

The business case is complete bollocks - like the business case for every bit of major infrastructure. If we'd worried about the business cases we'd still be driving on rutted gravel tracks.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Don't waste money on HS2, spend it on a 3rd Runway for Heathrow..... runs for cover .....

 

[Night Train]

it's a question of what you get for the money. The French are just about to put down a 200 mph 200 mile line for £8bn. HS2 will apparently cost £42bn. Why?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/03/peter-mandelson-hs2-epiphany-tipped-balance

There was a Tweet about the £50bn cost being equivalent to the amount needed to achieve nuclear fusion and unlimited cheap power and that it might be a better use of the money.
I suggested that a tiny fraction of that amount spent on putting solar water heating, and solar PV, on every roof in the country would be better value for money in terms of energy. Solar has a proven history where as fusion has yet to deliver a fraction of the energy it consumes.

Moving freight (or even whole trucks, as done in India and as with cars in the old Motorail days) on to rail, with smaller localised delivery vans and cargo bikes at the rail hubs, would be a nicer way to improve the transport network in the country.