HS2, another expensive vanity project

[stevieb15]

It's reported the government will today announce the go ahead for the next two phases of the UK High Speed rail network, at the astounding cost of £32 billion.
Having followed the debate such as its been, I've tried to ignore the NIMBY comments, valid thought they are, and the equally valid environmental issues, but have concentrated on the head line financials.
The first thing that strikes me is that most of these big projects never come in to budget, take the £2.9 billion Olympics which have virtually quadrupled in price,
the second is "what else could we do with £32 billion (£32,000,000,000).
Surely if our wonderful government really wants to assist business by making UK travel faster it would do something about our roads, motorways cost between £24 million and £40 million per mile to build and A roads roughly £13 million, so if we spent the whole amount on motorways we could end up with another 1000 miles of fast, safe commuter friendly tarmac relieving the current Mway network.
Personally I think we'd be better off as a nation with second M1, M6, M25, M60/M62, M42, M8 and M27 extended along the length of the south coast.
Instead it seems we're to have a vanity project which when completed will benefit few and probably be as badly run as the rest of the rail network.

 

[wemorgan]

With any large capital expense project we need to know the facts, figures, numbers to be able to make an informed opinion. As is so typical in these projects, the publication of these facts has been hard, if not impossible to find.

 

[DrNick]

Back in my university days I wrote an assignment on the theory that big projects usually cost 2 x pi their original estimates. It turns out this is a good working rule! Con't remember the specifics now (it was a long time ago) but example projects might be Concorde, the pyramids, chunnel etc

 

[redbaron]

I think the issue with HS2 that people forget is that it is an investment in infrastructure that will server us for 150+ years.... and also an item that should have been built 30-40 years ago...

 

[Scott_F]

Back in my university days I wrote an assignment on the theory that big projects usually cost 2 x pi their original estimates. It turns out this is a good working rule! Con't remember the specifics now (it was a long time ago) but example projects might be Concorde, the pyramids, chunnel etc

If it's the Olympics make it 4 x pi (and rising).

 

[stevieb15]

I think the issue with HS2 that people forget is that it is an investment in infrastructure that will server us for 150+ years.... and also an item that should have been built 30-40 years ago...

Similar to the roads then, which unlike trains are used by millions daily and due to the VED system produce an annual surplus rather than requiring subsidy.

 

[redbaron]

Similar to the roads then, which unlike trains are used by millions daily and due to the VED system produce an annual surplus rather than requiring subsidy.

Sadly they only produce a surplus because we dont maintain them properly... but I do know where you are coming from.

 

[jaymanek]

Like Will, id say we just dont have enough info on this subject to make an informed opinion.
The press is just full of nonsense opinion rather than any meaningful numbers.

I try to use trains wherever possible. For me they are a very quick and easy way to get into the capital, relatively cheap too.
The only reason I dont use them more often is because it can become expensive if I have other people to take with me.
Also timings of trains sometimes make it impossible...

If HS2 can get people from Birmingham to London in an hour then it will be massively popular for commuters and business folk, which in turn should relieve some pressure on the roads.

 

[MercFanUk]

As I see it - any improvement to our appalling rail system can only be a good thing.

 

[nick mercedes]

If HS2 can get people from Birmingham to London in an hour then it will be massively popular for commuters and business folk, which in turn should relieve some pressure on the roads.

But at present it only take 1 hour 35, is the £32billion (read £96billion) this is going to cost ever going to see any benefit for anyone other the foreign companies who are going to build this?

Expect a number of politicians to have green lighted this scheme to end as non execs at the contractors.

See business as usual.

 

[nick mercedes]

I think the issue with HS2 that people forget is that it is an investment in infrastructure that will server us for 150+ years.... and also an item that should have been built 30-40 years ago...

When have you even met anyone who has said "I would have gone to Birmingham on a train, but it takes an hour and a half, however I would have gone if it had taken an hour".

If governments cared about the midlands economy they would have given LDV the £15million it needed to keep going etc.

Why would a quicker train journey bring about *any* ecominic benefits to the regions that are going to be blighted by it's presence?

 

[MercFanUk]

BBC says the Birmingham/London route will take just 49 mins. So if the current time is 1 hour 35 mins, your actually saving 46 mins off that journey - to be fair that's pretty good.

 

[nick mercedes]

BBC says the Birmingham/London route will take just 49 mins. So if the current time is 1 hour 35 mins, your actually saving 46 mins off that journey - to be fair that's pretty good.

If they say it will cost £32billion and take 49 minutes, expect it to cost £96 billion and the journey time to slip a bit to around an hour and 45.

 

[MercFanUk]

Well naturally, that way we all still get to moan once it's finished

 

[wemorgan]

With any large capital expense project we need to know the facts, figures, numbers to be able to make an informed opinion. As is so typical in these projects, the publication of these facts has been hard, if not impossible to find.

For example: BBC News - HS2: Phase one of high-speed rail line gets go-ahead

the most significant transport infrastructure project since the building of the motorways

Please tell me how significance is measured.

By following in the footsteps of the 19th Century railway pioneers, the government is signalling its commitment to providing 21st Century infrastructure and connections - laying the groundwork for long-term, sustainable economic growth

Sounds great but clearly it means nothing of any substance.

The government estimates that the project could eventually result in 9 million road journeys and 4.5 million journeys by plane instead being taken by train every year.

Excellent some numbers at last. But we need to know the bigger picture to understand its impact. How many road and plane journeys are currently being made? Is this reduction 50% or 0.005%?

"HS2 is therefore an important part of transport's low-carbon future," Ms Greening said.

Quite possibly a fair point. But I'd be interested to know the other important parts the Government are surely considering. You need a joined up CO2 reduction plan not just one flag ship event.

There had been almost 55,000 responses to the consultation process on the project, which clearly "generates strong feelings, both in favour and against the scheme", the minister said:

55,000: how does that compare to other consultation processes?

She pledged a commitment to "developing a network with the lowest feasible impacts on local communities and the natural environment"

Lowest feasible - nice turn of phrase. We care, but only to the tune of x pounds. How much money has been earmarked to environmental projects within HS2?

"I have been mindful that we must safeguard the natural environment as far as possible, both for the benefit of those enjoying our beautiful countryside today and for future generations."

So she's thought about environmental issues. Nice of her to reassure us of that.

Revisions to the route had halved the number of homes at risk, as well as reducing by a third the number due to experience increased noise, she said.

So has the route become longer, slower and more polluting now? Maybe some of those homes were old and inefficient anyway, which a new home would have improved. Who knows, not me, because we're not told such things.

Protest groups formed to oppose the scheme say the planned route crosses an area of outstanding natural beauty and it will damage the environment.

The protesters play the same game too. "damage the environment" - By how much? How much would the environment have been damaged by not building HS2 and allowing more cars on the road?

Opponents have also challenged the government's economic argument, suggesting the costs will be greater while the economic benefits will be lower than forecast, and that the business case for HS2 is based on an overly-optimistic prediction of growth in demand for long-distance train travel.

Prove it. Please show us your version of the numbers.

"There is no business case, no environmental case and there is no money to pay for it,"

"It's a white elephant of monumental proportions and you could deliver more benefits to more people more quickly for less money by investing in the current rail infrastructure."

Calm down dear. This debate is clearly too complex for you to take part in. Return to your cave and us adults will continue the discussion.

"High-speed rail has a role to play in developing a greener, faster transport system, but current plans won't do enough to cut emissions overall - ministers should prioritise spending on improving local train and bus services instead.

Interesting. How many local rail journeys are made vs long journeys. What is the CO2 output for a typical commuter?

Fundamentally, our global competitiveness is at stake

Wow this is MAJOR, how can anyone argue against such a compelling and detailed argument?

Is anyone in a position of responsibility within the HS2 debate capable of talking common sense?

 

[bolide]

When have you even met anyone who has said "I would have gone to Birmingham on a train, but it takes an hour and a half, however I would have gone if it had taken an hour".

I absolutely agree with that

However you frequently hear people say "I'd have taken the train if it didn't cost so much money" and that situation is not going to improve if you spend £32B on a new train line

The last time I went to Manchester I booked a return ticket but arrived back early. Virgin would not let me on an empty seat on an earlier train unless I paid £48 extra. This is the kind of stupidity that has ruined the rail network

Nick Froome

 

[wemorgan]

I absolutely agree with that

Me too. But maybe this is more about job mobility? Some people can't afford to live in London (or choose not to) but see a suitable London based job.

If this is the case it begs the question, would spending £38B on regional development offer the same/better/worse return on that investment?

 

[neilrr]

How much will a normal HS2 1 day return B'rum > London ticket cost?

How much will a season ticket cost?

Prices now for a day return are £162 for a not 1st Class, walk up & buy, not bought in advance, morning & evening commute time ticket.

No discounts even if booked 2 weeks in advance.

 

[Stratman]

I can't quite see how it will reduce overcrowding on the existing lines. I'm making the big assumption that it will be priced as a premium service due to the time saved, priced to attract those who add the cost of their first class tickets to their client's bill.

I can't say I've noticed much overcrowding in the first class carriages, but I'm prepared to be corrected.

 

[wemorgan]

I'm making the big assumption that it will be priced as a premium service due to the time saved, priced to attract those who add the cost of their first class tickets to their client's bill.

The M6 Toll might give a useful insight to how the public and business view premium transport options. When the M6 Toll first opened I used it at most once a week. Even with a 'season ticket' the cost was high and the time it saved me never truly justified the toll. So I stopped using it and just woke up 30mins earlier to get ahead of the traffic. From what I read today the M6 Toll remains an under used resource because it prices itself out of the market it's trying to attract.