why all the hate for hs2?

[Freefaller]

The politicians have stated that this is a long term project with benefits due to be accumulated over several decades. Some some up to 100 years. It does seem to make it less appealing but at the same time there are some other factors to consider which don't sound as sexy but are probably worth mentioning.

Freight - it should in theory remove thousands of trucks off the road and increase the FMCG industry. That should in theory have a net benefit (carbon and so on), improve road networks and better transport hubs. Imagine I guess smaller electric van distribution hubs at either end would be far better than 10s of thousands of 40 tonne trucks. I mean heck 1 train alone can take over 50 truck's worth.

SMEs engagement and development. Stimulating innovation and knowledge and development in a somewhat old fashioned sector. I believe Hundreds of SMEs have been engaged and grown as a result. They could then export their capabilities internationally? I speak from personal experience as I've helped over a dozen SMEs engage with HS2 and over half of them have doubled in size since a d doing really well.

Apprenticeships. I think they're due to achieve their 1000th apprentice soon which is actually pretty cool.

Employment - 30k+ jobs is not to be sniffed at.

Social value impact - but that I guess is a more long term issue of course.

I think there's also an opportunity to create a new standard for rail in the UK if the ORR and DfT allow for the changes and modernisation of the rail network which they seem quite slow at allowing to happen.

It could also take a lot of the burden of the main routes allowing for better local and regional rail services to be improved?

However it is all quite hard to be sure as the economic model keeps changing and although all the independent papers do state overall value it is nonetheless a very expensive project and seems a little disproportionately costly. I think this is mainly down to politics rather than anything else.

Though in comparison rail Baltica is seemingly only going to cost around £6bn and is a significantly larger more complex project.

That said the new rail connection programme in Canada is earmarked at $75bn in total! Still less than HS2 though.

The Etihad rail project is over. $14bn but a lot simpler than HS2 but does have to contend with sand and heat.

Infrastructure is expensive but it does stimulate the economy. However I am torn at the cost of HS2, especially now the project has been completed butchered - I think if it was the cost and actually went all the way to Scotland then I think that would be justified.

 

[crazyDAJT]

My original post hasn’t exactly aged well in 10 years

Hs2 does indeed seem to be an absolute farce over time over budget and looking like a gross waste of money these days.

How could something that promised so much deliver to little for such an exorbitant price

Because we spend over a decade pontificating about things like this before actually getting on with it.

Look a nuclear power or our sovereign deterrent.

If we hadn’t messed around with these project they would have costed a lot less and been delivered long ago.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t plan project or say to hell with environmental factors.

But our 4 year political cycle makes large infrastructure projects impossible to deliver.

 

[Freefaller]

Because we spend over a decade pontificating about things like this before actually getting on with it.

Look a nuclear power or our sovereign deterrent.

If we hadn’t messed around with these project they would have costed a lot less and been delivered long ago.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t plan project or say to hell with environmental factors.

But our 4 year political cycle makes large infrastructure projects impossible to deliver.

100% agree. The lack of continuity between government kills innovation and entrepreneurship and major infrastructure projects.

I mean there should be able to to a cross party agreements than projects will be carried on, assuming both sides agree. It's worse I think scrapping a project that has already done significant tunneling and building. But at the same time the dilly dallying that the government does costs us the tax payers a lot more.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Scrapping it is pointless now, most of the money has either already been spent or contracts have been issued. A lot of the hard bits have already been completed or started. Might as well just finish it.

It will probably be the last high speed rail line to be built in this country ever. Why? Because Nimbys don’t allow major infrastructure projects to go ahead without constant legal battles that ultimately end up ballooning the costs significantly.

It doesn’t matter what it is, roads, power lines, train lines, wind farms, solar farms, nuclear power, even housing.

Everyone is crying out for all of that stuff to be built and yet nothing can be built because professional campaign groups oppose everything. It eventually gets built but at a significantly higher cost and with a huge time penalty. The only people that win are lawyers and everyone else loses out.

The USA used national security as a reason to get the interstate highway system built and they are not wrong. Critical infrastructure is a point of national security, getting it built and quickly is incredibly important.

As for those talking about rail in the north, what do you think will happen when the government actually tried to move forward with it? A bunch of professional campaign groups will pop up to try and block it and start a 3-5 year legal battle because a few of old trees are going to be cut down.

 

[crazyDAJT]

100% agree. The lack of continuity between government kills innovation and entrepreneurship and major infrastructure projects.

I mean there should be able to to a cross party agreements than projects will be carried on, assuming both sides agree. It's worse I think scrapping a project that has already done significant tunneling and building. But at the same time the dilly dallying that the government does costs us the tax payers a lot more.

It won’t change. Look at the mess around long term social care. About 10 years ago all three main parties where close to a deal and one side bailed out.

Then they just sling mud at each other.

Nuclear was another mess. We have been talking about more stations since the 90s. We would be in a much better place with energy if we just got on with it.

 

[crazyDAJT]

The USA used national security as a reason to get the interstate highway system built and they are not wrong. Critical infrastructure is a point of national security, getting it built and quickly is incredibly important.

There is nothing stoping us doing this. But no party will as it will be unpopular and they wont win the next election.

 

[katie279]

Some good points FF - interleaved thoughts

The politicians have stated that this is a long term project with benefits due to be accumulated over several decades. Some some up to 100 years. It does seem to make it less appealing but at the same time there are some other factors to consider which don't sound as sexy but are probably worth mentioning.

Freight - it should in theory remove thousands of trucks off the road and increase the FMCG industry. That should in theory have a net benefit (carbon and so on), improve road networks and better transport hubs. Imagine I guess smaller electric van distribution hubs at either end would be far better than 10s of thousands of 40 tonne trucks. I mean heck 1 train alone can take over 50 truck's worth.

This is true, although if you look at the 15 year forecasts (let alone the 100 year ones), trucks now outstrip trains (lorry trains, autonomous vehicles, electric engines, renewable sources all doing their bit)...

SMEs engagement and development. Stimulating innovation and knowledge and development in a somewhat old fashioned sector. I believe Hundreds of SMEs have been engaged and grown as a result. They could then export their capabilities internationally? I speak from personal experience as I've helped over a dozen SMEs engage with HS2 and over half of them have doubled in size since a d doing really well.

This is definitely true, I'd just question the opportunity cost - ie what else could they have been trained in. Eg size of opportunity knowing how to build trains in 15 years, or if we'd invested in more modern tech...

Apprenticeships. I think they're due to achieve their 1000th apprentice soon which is actually pretty cool.

Agree - although the company I work at takes in over 1000 a year, and that's only around 60k people...

Employment - 30k+ jobs is not to be sniffed at.

Agree - although again the opportunity cost is the bit that irks me - imagine 30k jobs in nuclear, solar, robotics, autonomous vehicles etc - being perfectly blunt, imagine we'd spent 1000th the amount and just given a bit incentive to Musk to build three gigafactories in the UK to supply UK, EU etc - we've have 100s of thousands of jobs in future skills.

Infrastructure is expensive but it does stimulate the economy. However I am torn at the cost of HS2, especially now the project has been completed butchered - I think if it was the cost and actually went all the way to Scotland then I think that would be justified.

You just want an excuse to visit and throw mud on my solar panels, eh?

 

[Freefaller]

This is a powerful example if how high speed travel can really impact not only commuting but also accessibility of the regions across France. Ok I know this is a country that's twice the size and the same population.

Perhaps it's not applicable in the UK. But if deployed well you then can live in a part of the UK and access the big cities for work.

 

[katie279]

This is a powerful example if how high speed travel can really impact not only commuting but also accessibility of the regions across France. Ok I know this is a country that's twice the size and the same population.

Perhaps it's not applicable in the UK. But if deployed well you then can live in a part of the UK and access the big cities for work.

Totally agree, but it is a map from the 1980s....

This naturally predates computers basically, let alone the internet, the rise of digital jobs, let alone remote work and the post Covid shift..... I ironically have someone who works in my team based in Bordeaux...... 99% of time we zoom, the rest of the time he flies....!

 

[413x]

I'll can never see my mind being changed that Hs2 was a colossal waste of money.

Its one of those projects that comes so far down the list of good ways to use 100-150bln it shouldn't have been considered.

So many other things in the UK needed attention before this

 

[Freefaller]

Totally agree, but it is a map from the 1980s....

This naturally predates computers basically, let alone the internet, the rise of digital jobs, let alone remote work and the post Covid shift..... I ironically have someone who works in my team based in Bordeaux...... 99% of time we zoom, the rest of the time he flies....!

Is it? My friend said it was more recent! Ah well i.stand corrected!

Anyway regardless of digital jobs and remote working which will never be in my opinion something that will be exclusively done and I do believe a shift back to more traditional working will occur. Of course there's a cultural element and certainly from my peers/family/friends in France zoom etc is fine for updates and so on but people are more inclined to meet up.

Flying is a choice, personally when I go to France I love the train even with 2 kids but we live close to a terminal on both sides so it makes life easier than flying.

But anyway HS2 is overly expensive, but it's down to the government and their poor management of the project rather than the project itself.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

This is a powerful example if how high speed travel can really impact not only commuting but also accessibility of the regions across France. Ok I know this is a country that's twice the size and the same population.

Perhaps it's not applicable in the UK. But if deployed well you then can live in a part of the UK and access the big cities for work.

I'm assuming the black rings are the time for a normal train but I can't see how long it would take via high speed rail.

The USA used national security as a reason to get the interstate highway system built and they are not wrong. Critical infrastructure is a point of national security, getting it built and quickly is incredibly important.

If you are refering to what I think you are refering to. An American general wanted to see how quickly he could get reinforcements from the one side of the country to the other in case of an invasion. So he took a unit with him and made the journey. I believe it took him over two weeks to complete the journey. This was deemed unacceptable hence the need the national security need for their highways.

Then Covid means huge proportion of people start working from home/hybrid so commutes fall through the floor - and you still plough on.

I've recently started a new job with a great hybrid working policy and a few people in my team commute over 100 miles (Near the 2 hour mark in terms of driving) to get to the office. People are willing to put up with longer commutes if they only need to do it a few times a week. IMO it means having better faster links between towns and cities around the country will help to foster hybrid working.

 

[Freefaller]

@Chuk_Chuk the black lines are how long it takes. If you look at Bordeaux for example it would take over 5hrs to get to Paris. But if you look at the red Bordeaux it's moved up to 2.5hrs to get to Paris. Marseille has moved from over 6hrs to under 3hrs. I mean that's phenomenal IMO.

 

[katie279]

I've recently started a new job with a great hybrid working policy and a few people in my team commute over 100 miles (Near the 2 hour mark in terms of driving) to get to the office. People are willing to put up with longer commutes if they only need to do it a few times a week. IMO it means having better faster links between towns and cities around the country will help to foster hybrid working.

Oh don't get me wrong, Freefaller's chart is sensible and I don't dispute that better transport links increase transport - but as you're describing, in an era of lowering transport it's a peculiar hill to climb.

More fundamentally, none of this actually generates additional income for either the country or the government - indeed if anything it's the contrary. eg if HS2 was an amazing success and built for nothing somehow, then it'd open folks outside London to jobs in London, this would reduce wages (especially if companies no longer need to pay London salaries).....which a) does nothing, but move the money around the UK and b) reduces the amount of tax people are paying.............

 

[katie279]

Is it? My friend said it was more recent! Ah well i.stand corrected!

Anyway regardless of digital jobs and remote working which will never be in my opinion something that will be exclusively done and I do believe a shift back to more traditional working will occur. Of course there's a cultural element and certainly from my peers/family/friends in France zoom etc is fine for updates and so on but people are more inclined to meet up.

Flying is a choice, personally when I go to France I love the train even with 2 kids but we live close to a terminal on both sides so it makes life easier than flying.

But anyway HS2 is overly expensive, but it's down to the government and their poor management of the project rather than the project itself.

Well I'm meaning TGV launched in 1981 - so the decision and concept originates from there (and much of the route in the diagram) - bit like me showing you a map of the A1 drawn in 2020, but obviously the decision/logic of the road dates way back.

I agree there'll be a drift, although I think there's close to zero chance it'll go back to how it was before (working with Microsoft at the moment on this - they've got amazing data from Windows, 365, Office, LinkedIn, Github, XBox and all the platforms they own - they can effectively 'see' the entire business world better than anyone on Earth - when people are working, where they're working and so on - it's fascinating stuff!)

I do agree if HS2 was commercially priced, more smartly designed, trying to pioneer some new tech (and therefore ROI) and not shipping the money/skills/core jobs to overseas firms, then there might be more of an open mind from people, but it's a bit of a mess otherwise......!

 

[Freefaller]

Ah yes. I mean the TGV and it's wider network has grown since the 80s making more of France accessible that's the point. Expanding high speed travel has a massive impact on the regions and economy which France has capitalised on, certainly with intercity connections across Europe.

I agree the data garnered is amazing but there's nothing that can replace face to face interaction and innovation/ problem solving as a group of humans feeding off the energy and conversation in a room. Whilst people can work remotely on a huge number of things it's not the panacea that will save productivity or industries. Using data to make better decisions and enhance or counter gut instinct is absolutely amazing though and should be capitalised.

Until everything is done by robots (from engineering to surgeries) then we'll need the skills and communities to be connected by transport systems to allow "stuff" to happen, in my opinion of course.

Agree HS2 is a commercial mess but again down to poor planning by the government and relying on quite antediluvian behaviours and knowledge.

 

[Diddums]

I think we can all agree that had we known beforehand what the costs involved with the project would be, we'd have told them to get stuffed and utilize the money for other projects. The problem is we're now way past the point of no return and scrapping it would be a monumental waste of time and money. Finish it, make sure it's properly used and doesn't cost £lol to travel on and learn from it.

 

[katie279]

Ah yes. I mean the TGV and it's wider network has grown since the 80s making more of France accessible that's the point. Expanding high speed travel has a massive impact on the regions and economy which France has capitalised on, certainly with intercity connections across Europe.

I agree the data garnered is amazing but there's nothing that can replace face to face interaction and innovation/ problem solving as a group of humans feeding off the energy and conversation in a room. Whilst people can work remotely on a huge number of things it's not the panacea that will save productivity or industries. Using data to make better decisions and enhance or counter gut instinct is absolutely amazing though and should be capitalised.

Until everything is done by robots (from engineering to surgeries) then we'll need the skills and communities to be connected by transport systems to allow "stuff" to happen, in my opinion of course.

Agree HS2 is a commercial mess but again down to poor planning by the government and relying on quite antediluvian behaviours and knowledge.

Yeah, think we're entirely in agreement here - think I just see the reality in a knowledge economy is that whereas ~60% of work minimum in most firms was focus work undertaken in an office before, this isn't coming back.

The 40% you describe will stay for the foreseeable future, but that's still 60% of travellers gone!

 

[413x]

I think we can all agree that had we known beforehand what the costs involved with the project would be, we'd have told them to get stuffed and utilize the money for other projects. The problem is we're now way past the point of no return and scrapping it would be a monumental waste of time and money. Finish it, make sure it's properly used and doesn't cost £lol to travel on and learn from it.

I agree that we are probably over the point of no return.

But it would have been clear that the estimated costs are. Always at least x2 for any government project. So it should have been obvious it was going to cost 100bln at least.


I don't agree with the "in hindsight" on this one. It was always going to be a waste. And it was always going to go waaaay over budget.


As a national project it benefits a handful of people. Even if it was just £100bln that means each person has paid over £1500 towards this. And that's every person. Now think of who actually pays tax. Its probably more like £4000-5000 per tax payer. (£4000-5000 is a random guess)

 

[Harlequin]

I'd say both - deregulation, castrating of the regulators, extending credit provision, capital rule changes, counter cycle activity, expanded public spending etc etc certainly sits heavily on Labour and then factors such as the US contagion would be environmental.

The Mortgage crash started in the USA and effected the world ; yet you blame Labour for that? Ok then.