with the state the economy is in, could the money not be put to better use NOW and this thing be put to one side for the time being. or is it all about secret hand shakes and a bung or two here and there?
Whenever you improve the infrastructure of a country that country's economy grows. If we don't invest now, we're going to be really far behind the rest of the world.
Well in theory it does help the country. The theory is that the 32billion will all be spent within the UK, so it will generate jobs, safe guard companies, and keep taxes flowing. It's a lovely theory, until we find out that we're using a German construction company, and the steel's coming from India, the software from the US, the computer infrastructure from China, etc. etc. etc.
There is an economic theory that in times of hardship you create public projects, it's a good way of getting money to the people without just handing it out. The problem is that doesn't work as well in a multi-national world. It was easy years ago, the only people who'd see that money would be British, but that's not the case anymore. In the great depression in the US they were literally paying people to dig holes and then paying other people to fill them in. That way government money flowed directly to low paid labourers, the very people hardest hit by the depression.
With the recession the government should be looking to leverage and cash and/or cheap lending to get large scale infrastructure projects done. In theory materials and labour should be at their cheapest. The problem is that government is incredibly bad at managing large scale infrastructure projects, so any saving will be lost in the bureaucracy of government, the glacial pace decisions are made at, and the often sheer incompetence of those tasks with making the decisions.
To link London with a high speed train service to a couple of northern cities. Thought that was fairly obvious.
Trains already do there at 60-80 mph, how fast you wanna do ffs?
But the existing lines are virtually full. It'll help spread wealth around the country, or if nothing else make it quicker for us to get to Northern away games!
To link London with a high speed train service to a couple of northern cities. Thought that was fairly obvious.
Trains already do there at 60-80 mph, how fast you wanna do ffs?
But the existing lines are virtually full. It'll help spread wealth around the country, or if nothing else make it quicker for us to get to Northern away games!
More importantly, quicker to get home from northern away games.
Whenever you improve the infrastructure of a country that country's economy grows. If we don't invest now, we're going to be really far behind the rest of the world.
I'd agree with you on most cases, but not this. What has Ebbsfleet done for North Kent? You can get to Kings Cross in 26 minutes, but who wants to go there?
Whenever you improve the infrastructure of a country that country's economy grows. If we don't invest now, we're going to be really far behind the rest of the world.
I'd agree with you on most cases, but not this. What has Ebbsfleet done for North Kent? You can get to Kings Cross in 26 minutes, but who wants to go there?
Whenever I go on the HS1 it's usually pretty full, and that's off peak, so I imagine it is full during peak times. The problem is it's probably done more for businesses in and around Kings Cross than it has for ones in NW Kent. However, there's a chance that in a couple of years time I will need to set up a UK office for a US company, and I will be pushing for it to be near Ebbsfleet, that way you're 20 mins from central London and 1hr from Central Paris. Once cross rail is completed it'll also be easy to get to Heathrow and the M4 corridor. All at a fraction of the costs of renting office space in central London.
Whenever you improve the infrastructure of a country that country's economy grows. If we don't invest now, we're going to be really far behind the rest of the world.
I'd agree with you on most cases, but not this. What has Ebbsfleet done for North Kent? You can get to Kings Cross in 26 minutes, but who wants to go there?
Whenever I go on the HS1 it's usually pretty full, and that's off peak, so I imagine it is full during peak times. The problem is it's probably done more for businesses in and around Kings Cross than it has for ones in NW Kent. However, there's a chance that in a couple of years time I will need to set up a UK office for a US company, and I will be pushing for it to be near Ebbsfleet, that way you're 20 mins from central London and 1hr from Central Paris. Once cross rail is completed it'll also be easy to get to Heathrow and the M4 corridor. All at a fraction of the costs of renting office space in central London.
And the proposed Paramount Park, within throwing distance of Ebssfleet station, that will generate loads of train passengers, and boost business in the area.
Because peope can't see the benefits straight away, they assume there are no benefits at all.
As its been said, if you wish to consider starting a new office outside of London, but with a connection with London, HS2 will be a consideration. If you are a company needing to cut costs and relocate outside of London, now Manchester, Birmingham and anywhere north of Watford is within an easy distance, so staff don't have to move, just take an 1 hour train trip (which I am sure lots of you do already!) thus cutting costs.
At the moment Heathrow is at 99% capacity. A lot of flights are domestic. A high-speed line kills dead all those silly internal UK flights. That is what happened in France when the TGV started up.
As for Ebbsfleet of course it is not there primarily to get people to St Pancras. Around one million people are now within easy reach of Paris or Brussels when before they had to cart themselves off to an airport. I got to my Mums place in Eltham 2hr 15mins after departing Paris. There's no way on earth I could have done that by plane.
The only issue is that we should have done this 20 years ago, like the French and Germans were already doing.
At the moment Heathrow is at 99% capacity. A lot of flights are domestic. A high-speed line kills dead all those silly internal UK flights. That is what happened in France when the TGV started up.
On top of that, Birmingham International effectively becomes a London airport, as easily accessible from central London as Gatwick and easier than Stanstead.
At the moment Heathrow is at 99% capacity. A lot of flights are domestic. A high-speed line kills dead all those silly internal UK flights. That is what happened in France when the TGV started up.
On top of that, Birmingham International effectively becomes a London airport, as easily accessible from central London as Gatwick and easier than Stanstead.
Don't tell Boris. He wants to spend even more on his airport located half-way to Amsterdam
Because peope can't see the benefits straight away, they assume there are no benefits at all.
As its been said, if you wish to consider starting a new office outside of London, but with a connection with London, HS2 will be a consideration. If you are a company needing to cut costs and relocate outside of London, now Manchester, Birmingham and anywhere north of Watford is within an easy distance, so staff don't have to move, just take an 1 hour train trip (which I am sure lots of you do already!) thus cutting costs.
There's massive amounts of space near Central Birmingham for example, derilict houses and factories, ripe for redevelopment, and HS2 will surely give this a massive push.
At the moment Heathrow is at 99% capacity. A lot of flights are domestic. A high-speed line kills dead all those silly internal UK flights. That is what happened in France when the TGV started up.
On top of that, Birmingham International effectively becomes a London airport, as easily accessible from central London as Gatwick and easier than Stanstead.
Don't really see how Gatwick is more accessible than Stansted. From central London there is very little difference. In fact I'd say Stansted is easier than Gatwick when driving.
I think Gatwick is considered easier as you can get trains from more locations. You have Gatwick express from Victoria, or First Central (or whatever is called, used to be thameslink I think) that goes from Brighton to Gatwick, into London Bridge, then Farringdon, St Pancras and out to Luton.
Compare that to Stansted where you have the Stansted Express into Liverpool Street, and that's about it.
Driving, Standsted used to be easier, but now that the Dartford Crossing is pretty much solid all day every day, then unless you have very early or late flights, Gatwick is considerably easier for those of us south of the water.
I was thiking accessibility on the train from a central london terminus. Liverpool St to Stanstead is about 50 minutes. Victoria to Gatwick is about 30. Euston to B'ham Airport on HS2 will be about 30.
Obviously if you're driving it depends where you are starting form. Gatwick is easier from (e.g. Balham), Stanstead is easier from East Ham.
Pick a spot in London, equi-distance from all the terminal, so somewhere around Oxford Circus, certainly looks like the centre of the tube map anyway.
So to Heathrow it's 30 mins, bakerloo line + Heathrow Express Gatwick is 45 minutes , Victoria line + southern trains Luton is around 50 minutes, Victoria line + train Stansted is just over an hour, Victoria line + train
Once HS2 is built then Birmingham airport should be a similar time to Stansted (depending on how long you have to wait at Euston for the connection).
An airport out in the Thames Estuary, would be just as far by train from central london as Birmingham international, or if it's quicker certainly no quicker than Gatwick, Luton and Stansted.
So if more runway capacity is needed, then we should be encouraging people to use Birmingham. If Birmingham needs expanding that would be a lot cheaper than expanding Heathrow, or building a brand new airport in the SE.
Also, the Stansted site is big enough, and almost looks like it was laid out, for a second runway.
There's pretty much nothing but fields south of Luton airport, so again another place that would be relatively simple to expand.
I think Prague makes a very good point. As these type of projects take many years to complete they need to be planned and started long before they are required. Also history tells us that in the end capacity tends to become filled simply because it's availability opens new opportunities.
Not that I'm pleased with it, but a chap that lives a couple of miles from me goes to Arsenal and can get door to seat quicker than I can get to The Valley.
Opening up ways to make journeys quicker increases the distance people will consider travelling for the same events.
At the moment Heathrow is at 99% capacity. A lot of flights are domestic. A high-speed line kills dead all those silly internal UK flights. That is what happened in France when the TGV started up.
On top of that, Birmingham International effectively becomes a London airport, as easily accessible from central London as Gatwick and easier than Stanstead.
England will become one big city in 30-40 years time
One thing we should ask questions about is how long it takes to build the damn thing. I am fairly sure the TGV lines didnt take this long. As for the Chinese, they build huge stretches in 3-4 years although there are worries about how safe they are. If we want to question the budget and value for money, that's where I'd start.
It's not due to be finished for at least 20 years and we all know that these things always take longer, remember the Channel Tunnel? However, this is the first major train line built north of London in over 100 years. We cannot forever rely on what was built in the Victorian era. We have to think about our children's future, and theirs. So we lose a bit of countryside, there's plenty more. This country will have the biggest population in Europe in 10 years time, we have to move on.
I hope it will be a good thing , anything that gets people up and down the country quicker has got to be a good thing , there's some pretty grim places up north that i'd want to get away from pretty quick!
Whether it will increase flooding i don't know , but as a concept it probably is one of those things that your doomed if you do and doomed if you don't do it.
Comments
with the state the economy is in, could the money not be put to better use NOW and this thing be put to one side for the time being. or is it all about secret hand shakes and a bung or two here and there?
There is an economic theory that in times of hardship you create public projects, it's a good way of getting money to the people without just handing it out. The problem is that doesn't work as well in a multi-national world. It was easy years ago, the only people who'd see that money would be British, but that's not the case anymore. In the great depression in the US they were literally paying people to dig holes and then paying other people to fill them in. That way government money flowed directly to low paid labourers, the very people hardest hit by the depression.
With the recession the government should be looking to leverage and cash and/or cheap lending to get large scale infrastructure projects done. In theory materials and labour should be at their cheapest. The problem is that government is incredibly bad at managing large scale infrastructure projects, so any saving will be lost in the bureaucracy of government, the glacial pace decisions are made at, and the often sheer incompetence of those tasks with making the decisions.
As its been said, if you wish to consider starting a new office outside of London, but with a connection with London, HS2 will be a consideration. If you are a company needing to cut costs and relocate outside of London, now Manchester, Birmingham and anywhere north of Watford is within an easy distance, so staff don't have to move, just take an 1 hour train trip (which I am sure lots of you do already!) thus cutting costs.
As for Ebbsfleet of course it is not there primarily to get people to St Pancras. Around one million people are now within easy reach of Paris or Brussels when before they had to cart themselves off to an airport. I got to my Mums place in Eltham 2hr 15mins after departing Paris. There's no way on earth I could have done that by plane.
The only issue is that we should have done this 20 years ago, like the French and Germans were already doing.
Livingston was building it in Cuba
Compare that to Stansted where you have the Stansted Express into Liverpool Street, and that's about it.
Driving, Standsted used to be easier, but now that the Dartford Crossing is pretty much solid all day every day, then unless you have very early or late flights, Gatwick is considerably easier for those of us south of the water.
Not everyone lives south of the river!
Obviously if you're driving it depends where you are starting form. Gatwick is easier from (e.g. Balham), Stanstead is easier from East Ham.
So to Heathrow it's 30 mins, bakerloo line + Heathrow Express
Gatwick is 45 minutes , Victoria line + southern trains
Luton is around 50 minutes, Victoria line + train
Stansted is just over an hour, Victoria line + train
Once HS2 is built then Birmingham airport should be a similar time to Stansted (depending on how long you have to wait at Euston for the connection).
An airport out in the Thames Estuary, would be just as far by train from central london as Birmingham international, or if it's quicker certainly no quicker than Gatwick, Luton and Stansted.
So if more runway capacity is needed, then we should be encouraging people to use Birmingham. If Birmingham needs expanding that would be a lot cheaper than expanding Heathrow, or building a brand new airport in the SE.
Also, the Stansted site is big enough, and almost looks like it was laid out, for a second runway.
There's pretty much nothing but fields south of Luton airport, so again another place that would be relatively simple to expand.
Not that I'm pleased with it, but a chap that lives a couple of miles from me goes to Arsenal and can get door to seat quicker than I can get to The Valley.
Opening up ways to make journeys quicker increases the distance people will consider travelling for the same events.
However, this is the first major train line built north of London in over 100 years. We cannot forever rely on what was built in the Victorian era. We have to think about our children's future, and theirs. So we lose a bit of countryside, there's plenty more. This country will have the biggest population in Europe in 10 years time, we have to move on.
Whether it will increase flooding i don't know , but as a concept it probably is one of those things that your doomed if you do and doomed if you don't do it.