There is far far to many cars on our roads for a start,yes i agree with what you are saying about finding ways of cutting time down on travel,thats not going to happen overnight.but we need capacity for the demand.
why all the hate for hs2?
- Thread starter 233
- Start date
There is far far to many cars on our roads for a start,yes i agree with what you are saying about finding ways of cutting time down on travel,thats not going to happen overnight.but we need capacity for the demand.
So when is HS2 likely to open? 2026?
Why not spend those 14 years and little bit of the budget, finding ingenious ways to reduce demand, rather than build a relatively small amount more capacity? Why are businesses requiring their workers to jump from city to city? Why are people ending up working the other side of the country from where they live? 14 years is a long time to work on corporate legislation and planning to reduce the demand for intercity travel. For intracity travel, cycle use can increase 10-fold before it even reaches the European average and light rail projects can reduce congestion on existing intercity lines.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Just give me a superfast internet connection so I can work from home 4 days out of 5. Then I won't need to use transport for the other 4, public or my car.
Caporegime
No land to expand...Yet they are building a new rail line?
It's a moot point, they can, they just dont want to buy land off others where the line already is.
No land to expand...Yet they are building a new rail line?
It's a moot point, they can, they just dont want to buy land off others where the line already is.
Most of the new line is through countryside, existing line is very built up. Massive difference in compulsory buying.
You then have the added fact of upgrading with trains running, which isn't easy at all.
Associate
I love new things, but I dont want it in my back garden! Will be able to see the tracks from my bedroom window.
It wont stop at a station near me for miles in any direction, it will end up going hugely over budget like all these other government projects.
Also could they not spend some of the money getting the existing rail network to work on time and possibly lower fares? £19 pound for a 45 mile journey where the train turns up on average 20-30 minutes late, never get a seat and the whole train smells of wee
I am for the project as any large scale transport investment is a good thing. However, one can't help but think where else in transport that £32bn could be spent. The M6 Toll Motorway (finished in 2003) cost £485m and is 27 miles long, meaning a rough cost of £18 million/mile. Call it £20 million. That's 1,600 miles of new Motorway for £32bn.
Phase one of Nottingham's tram network cost £200 million (An 8.7 mile line, running through the heart of the city centre to outer suburbs). Phase two will add two further lines, the cost of phase two being £360 million. Some of this £32bn could provide first class tram systems for Birmingham, Leeds, Bristol, Liverpool and many other major cities.
That said, flagship projects never come cheap. HS2 will also extend to Manchester and Leeds eventually too, so it will serve large areas of Britain.
Phase one of Nottingham's tram network cost £200 million (An 8.7 mile line, running through the heart of the city centre to outer suburbs). Phase two will add two further lines, the cost of phase two being £360 million. Some of this £32bn could provide first class tram systems for Birmingham, Leeds, Bristol, Liverpool and many other major cities.
That said, flagship projects never come cheap. HS2 will also extend to Manchester and Leeds eventually too, so it will serve large areas of Britain.
Associate
And stop in between? All roads lead to Rome. All rail lines lead to London.
This is Concord on rails and that's and Aeronautical Engineer speaking. Flagship projects like you say are expensive and look good but the reality is never considered.
This money would be much better spend elsewhere on other infrastructure projects.
Whether it's going to cut through Green Belt land aside....
One of the biggest reasons that I've seen said against the HS2 is that it's not going to really bring about the changes in travelling habits that they want it to do.
The biggest one is that they don't believe it will make people take the train when you can fly between major cities very cheaply. You can currently get a flight between London and Manchester for £27. If there is one thing rail journeys aren't in this country is cheap, for a new high-speed, state of the art railway system, it's going to be priced at a premium. People will continue to fly.
The cries that it would mainly be used by the wealthy are probably true, it's just going to be a faster service for Birmingham commuters to get into London than the current Virgin trains are.
It still amazes me that when I've been in Europe, I can travel on a high-speed train that will take me for miles between France and Switzerland for about £17. With pricing like that, everybody would use the train. I really don't see that happening with this project.
One of the biggest reasons that I've seen said against the HS2 is that it's not going to really bring about the changes in travelling habits that they want it to do.
The biggest one is that they don't believe it will make people take the train when you can fly between major cities very cheaply. You can currently get a flight between London and Manchester for £27. If there is one thing rail journeys aren't in this country is cheap, for a new high-speed, state of the art railway system, it's going to be priced at a premium. People will continue to fly.
The cries that it would mainly be used by the wealthy are probably true, it's just going to be a faster service for Birmingham commuters to get into London than the current Virgin trains are.
It still amazes me that when I've been in Europe, I can travel on a high-speed train that will take me for miles between France and Switzerland for about £17. With pricing like that, everybody would use the train. I really don't see that happening with this project.
I don't disagree, but we seem to lack the leadership and vision to mobilise and enthuse the necessary City Councils, Regional Partnerships and various other bodies to build alternatives (tram systems in lots of cities for example). Labour wanted metro schemes in lots of areas but few got off the ground.
We are far too NIMBYish and conservative (not in the political party sense, but literally wishing to conserve our physical surroundings and way of life) to push through major transport reforms in this country.
I would love to see a huge expansion of rail, road, even air transport (in the SE especially). We just seem to lack the balls, so to speak.
Then it would run at a huge loss and we'd all have to pay for it, whether we used it or not (through tax).
Caporegime
Exactly, it's going through TONS of country side, you city dwellers might not understand this, but driving around and seeing some greenery is a nice thing...We don't particulary want a train next to us 24/7
Have you seen the videos the HS2 people have MADE themselves? It looks ridiculous, and horrible.
As I have already said, the money would be better spent elsewhere. You can get from Brum to London fine already
Caporegime
Exactly my point
It is £30bn for the whole network including sections to Manchester and Leeds.
You genuinely think that we should forsake the countryside do you?
No doubt we will already be contributing something to it already by tax. If it's not going to really change much economically, better not to bother.
Yes. My point remains, though. The reduction in travel times are stupidly small.
It won't bring significant economical benefit and it doesn't justify putting thousands of people financially out of pocket being forced out of there houses.
Leeds to London: 1hr 20 mins as opposed to 2hrs 20 mins? Manchester to London: 1 hr 20 minutes from 2hrs 8 minutes? Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow all an hour less in travel time?
Seems quite a significant reduction to me.