We could literally replace our entire fossil fuel power generation with green nuclear power for the budget it already is, that would be a monumental achievement, an environmental milestone, and protect our energy supply from nefarious countries, that's forward thinking, not this rubbish.
why all the hate for hs2?
- Thread starter 233
- Start date
We could literally replace our entire fossil fuel power generation with green nuclear power for the budget it already is, that would be a monumental achievement, an environmental milestone, and protect our energy supply from nefarious countries, that's forward thinking, not this rubbish.
The problem is, you would still need to improve transport links, preferably in a manner that removes as much fossil fuel from the mix, and at the same time can transport very large numbers of people and material.
We could wait for electric aircraft (which would still have all the limitations and more of fossil fuelled ones), or build yet more roads and the chargers etc, or we could do what we should have been doing 30 years ago, building new fast tracks so we have a rail network that can compete with the motorway network*. We've got hundreds of thousands of people a day (if not a million or more) trying to use rail lines that were built for a fraction of the number, to get to work from increasingly long distances as the price of housing in major towns means that "affordable" housing is moving further and further away.
We keep building an extra lane onto the M6, extending the M25, building new bypases for the road network that maybe last 10 years before we need to build another one as the road capacity is now maxing out on the north side of the town rather than the south...(seriously in the last 25 years my town has had something like 5 bypasses built**). At the same time we've basically only built two new long stretches of trainline in the entire country, despite the fact that a train can carry hundreds of people safer, more cleanly, and in a way that means they're able to do something other than sit looking at the car in front of them for the entire journey.
We should have at least two lines (either way) going along similar routes to all the motorways and at least one line going near most of the major A roads, with the interlinks that the road system takes for granted to allow for disruption to be worked around so routine maintenance on a couple of miles of track doesn't completely shut down the rail network for tens of miles and require you to get on a bus.
We could, and should be doing both, there is nothing that says you can only have reliable power, or new trains, and part of the problem the UK has had since WW2 is that increasingly no politician wants to invest in infrastructure (or anything else) that they won't see the benefit of before the next election, let alone anything that is potentially unpopular for some of their local voters (regardless of how much it'll be popular with the rest of the country, or how desperately it's needed), which is why we get a few miles of "bypass" built that might be done in 3-5 years (if you're lucky) but works for just long enough to get them through an election cycle before the traffic has built up again to the point where the bypass needs a bypass.
It's the reason we've got a power system that's failing because no one has wanted to build new stations, even as the old ones are being shut down, it's the reason why we're pumping raw sewerage into the rivers and sea (undoing 50 years of trying to get some of the rivers to the point where they've got actual wildlife in them, not just floaters), our rail network is basically worse than almost any other "first world" country with the exception of America, and why our businesses tend to be behind the likes of German in terms of productivity as it seems no one in this country wants to invest in things.
*IIRC one of the reasons we don't, is the guy that basically made the decisions about investing in the 60's, was from memory involved in road construction...
**Largely because no one seems to have ever considered that there are only two roads going on way through the town, and one the other...so the town has pretty much doubled in size, all the amenities/services are still in the centre of the town, but only the road that runs through the centre has been there since the 1400's (so one of the bypasses basically lets you take a route that's about 10 times as long, go all round the outskirts of the town, a trip of several miles at 60-70mph, to avoid about a quarter of a mile at the centre of town).
Rail infrastructure does need improving I agree, but this half baked vanity project isn't the way to do it, and although there will be some impact on fossil fuel emissions, the electricity is of course in large part produced from fossil fuels which somewhat defeats the point of building this new "clean" electric train line, yeah it's cleaner than cars but not really anywhere near as clean as it should be.
I think that the power/environment issue is far more pressing personally than the rail infrastructure at the moment, perfect example being Germany which absolutely shafted itself by increasing it's reliance on foreign energy imports.
As opposed to improving domestic use transport links, they could/should be de-centralising industries (especially high tech) to suburban more rural places ie. one flavour of levelling up,
housing could be built cheaper and also allow people a better quality of life than having to commute and make extensive infrastructure use,
the green revolution starts by not making the trip, or, using a bicycle.
housing could be built cheaper and also allow people a better quality of life than having to commute and make extensive infrastructure use,
the green revolution starts by not making the trip, or, using a bicycle.
Why do you believe it is a vanity project?
Your posts on energy comes across as reactionary rather than proactive. We do need nuclear power, I've made it very clear that I think it is an atrocity that we don't have more of it but our change to nuclear power should have started decades ago. HS2 is not the reason why we don't have more nuclear power and it isn't preventing us from investing in it. One could argue that if HS2 is done correctly, it could aid in increasing the economic output of the nation and we could have more money to invest in nuclear.
They say never let a good tragedy go to waste, I believe that Bojo signed legislation to increase the countries investment into nuclear energy. Hopefully we can use the experience from Hinckley point C going forward to build more reactors, rather than letting the knowledge rot.
The infastructure of the entire country is decades behind where it should be and is due for a massive shakeup, which means a lot of money will need to be spent, preferably in a proactive manner not a reactionary one.
Certain Industries like being close to their clients, so they go where their clients are. If you want to move industries you will need to find away to make it feel like they aren't too far away from each other.
People are easier to move because their concern is commuting time. If you can increase the speed that people can travel at, then they can live further away. Its why i think we need more high speed lines. A 1 hour commute on a high speed line gives you many more options on where you want to live.
This tbh.
"decentralising" industry sounds good until you realise how much supporting infrastructure also needs to be shifted, IIRC in the car industry for example for every job at say the Nissan factory there might be another 5 jobs at smaller local companies that support it (and then the jobs that supply services to those staff, so things like cafes etc). So to "decentralise" the jobs at the main plant you also need to shift 5-10 times as many jobs around it and all the equipment that goes with them.
Or you can make it so that it's possible for the people to be "decentralised" as has been happening for over 100 years in London (part of the reason London had a good rail network originally was because they needed to bring people in to the city, when there were no cars), it's also the reason why house prices an hour or more outside of London, if near a London line can be much more than house prices the same distance out but without easy access to a train (people will take a train over a car in many instances if possible).
So if you can put in the train services to make it easier, and faster to say travel 50 miles to your job by train than it is to travel 20 miles by car, you not only move a massive amount of money further out, give people more choices about where they're working (a lot of people can't afford to move just to get nearer a job, and are stuck with what they can reach), and make the transport of the personnel and goods faster, cheaper and cleaner than it is at the moment (and importantly, more reliably)
Public transport in the UK is a bit of a joke, especially if you're low paid or work almost anything other than 8-6, as for example one of my "local" hospitals relies on staff from around 20 miles away, and because of the lack of public transport for around half the day it means that they all basically need cars (there are zero busses between 10pm and 6am weekdays, the shift patterns require staff to be travelling to/from the hospital in the "dead" hours).
IIRC in Japan they've taken this philosophy to extremes, partly due to need, so that many of the Tokyp workforce are well outside the main city, but can still reach their jobs in 30-60 minutes reliably by public transport.
We are taxed to the hilt and have a finite amount of money which needs to be spent sensibly, almost every week there is another cutback or budget increase to HS2. Why do I say it's a vanity project? Because it doesn't really serve the need of any demographic while costing more than any other train system in the world to my knowledge.
Sounds like a good thing, no? Keeps commuters and travellers from clogging up the local town centres. It also naturally increases the area allowing new houses for people to then join onto the commuter network from - bringing more people to the place, expanding local businesses and amenities etc., growing the town. I'm sure these things are well planned... well, perhaps "well" was too strong, but they're definitely planned, I'm sure
Lets put it this way, it's growing the town, it's just a shame all the amenities are still in the town centres, serviced by exactly one road and half the town basically has to use the bypasses to get to the supermarkets (4 of the 5 are on that road, the last one is on a new build industrial/shopping park that is still on the wrong side of the town but nearer the bypass).Sounds like a good thing, no? Keeps commuters and travellers from clogging up the local town centres. It also naturally increases the area allowing new houses for people to then join onto the commuter network from - bringing more people to the place, expanding local businesses and amenities etc., growing the town. I'm sure these things are well planned... well, perhaps "well" was too strong, but they're definitely planned, I'm sure
I though our internet infastructure is pretty good. Is this not true?
I believe that going forward, a lot of jobs will offer hybrid working (rather than WFH all the time) and this will change peoples relationship with commuting.
I was discussing with a friend about future work policies and commutes. For background we've both done long driving commutes. 1 hour 15 mintues one way minimum, going into work 5 days a week. The conclusion we came to was that, if people only had to go into an office 2-3 days a week. People will be more willing to put up with a longer commute, vs going into an office 5 days a week.
For the most part, yes it’s good, certainly good enough and by 2025 it should be very good. You are always going to get people who live in the sticks who have rubbish internet.
HS2 isn’t really about commuting, it’s intercity travel. Few people traveling intercity are commuters.
No one is going to be commuting from the centre of Birmingham to London, for a start a season ticket will be £LoL, for a second if you can afford a flat/house in the middle of Birmingham and a £lol season ticket, you can afford to live in London. I live in an outer commuting town in east anglia and a season ticket is over £7k a year for a under 90 minute train ride (1hr 15 for a fast non stopping train). The whole town lives within a 10 minutes of the station by bike. You really don’t want to be adding more than that on top of the train.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,381
- Location
- ST4
I live in a large city and don't have access to fibre of any flavour, I'm still stuck on 1MB/s ADSL2+ over copper.
Somebody call NASA!
I mean come on, you know which city you're in though, yeh?
Why not?
Because who now is commuting from Manchester to London daily? I bet very few people.
It's a big waste of money, and even in the projected stats it'll only have nearly paid for itself in 60 years.
The Northern Powerhouse was supposed to be about leveling up the North of England. Not trying to drain more people to London.