HS2 High speed railway

[StefanWolves]

Opinions?

My opinion there is no point in even debating it, the Government are 100% behind this and nothing will change their minds.

[Jordy]

Not only are the government behind it but all three of the major parties are, HS2 is well over-due and in my opinion couldn't be done sooner. Around 2018, the West Coast Mainline will reach capacity, this is a Victorian railway which has been upgraded to the absolute max, there is no other option but to build a new mainline to Birmingham and eventually Manchester/Liverpool, Glasgow etc. Our railways are severely behind those in European countries, trains in this country are limited to 125mph yet in Germany, France, Spain and Italy they're going well up to 210mph. To link the North and Midlands with London to become greater economics, a faster connection between the cities is essential.

The only reason people opposing it are NIMBYs as ever and personally I think we should push through legislation like the French to speed up the whole land buying process to build HS2, or like the Wigs did in the 1800s so we could build the original railways.

[Recursion]

How can *anyone* find anything wrong with it? Jordy has pretty much summed the whole thing up.

[GommeInc]

It is becoming necessary to do this now. Obviously there is opposition from small villages the line will be going near (not through, just near), but the trains aren't going to make a constant racket and newer trains are not that noisy :/ You'll get more noise from cars driving through these villagers, and the motorways which are no doubt closer and more used :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

A total waste of time when we have cheap flights (for now) and although there is a danger of our flights becoming too expensive than they should (thanks to green taxes levied by the UN, the EU and Whitehall itself) at the moment they seem the most economical in terms of transport. I don't see the justification on spending £Xbn on a vanity project when it could be spent elsewhere, ie filling in potholes in our notorious roads or simply given back to the taxpayers in terms of tax cuts which is something the economy desperately needs, not a expensive railway.

Then theres the issue of ruining yet more of our countryside, with little doubt that horrid international modern concrete bridges and passways will be built across the countryside which is already being destroyed by those ridiculous windmills the politicians keep putting up.


The only reason people opposing it are NIMBYs as ever and personally I think we should push through legislation like the French to speed up the whole land buying process to build HS2, or like the Wigs did in the 1800s so we could build the original railways.

..and the only people who seem avidly in favour of this are those who have an interest in the railways - I do myself, however I haven't seen the justification for spending this amount of money at this time on something like this.

Also, in you and Mr Hammond calling opposition to this system 'NIMBYISM', there's a failure to justify this amount of spending in such times when we have a growing national debt, coupled with the points earlier that we already have sufficent transport links via the sky along with enough transport problems which already need to be fixed.

[Chippiewill]

A total waste of time when we have cheap flights (for now) and although there is a danger of our flights becoming too expensive than they should (thanks to green taxes levied by the UN, the EU and Whitehall itself) at the moment they seem the most economical in terms of transport.It's so much more of a hassle, is less enjoyable, could actually take longer and price is dependant on electricity prices and not carbon fuels prices. Further more it is far more convenient for a short journey. Also, I severely doubt you could take all train traffic and stick it in the air without creating an air traffic control disaster.


I don't see the justification on spending £Xbn on a vanity project when it could be spent elsewhere, ie filling in potholes in our notorious roads or simply given back to the taxpayers in terms of tax cuts which is something the economy desperately needs, not a expensive railway.It's ok, it's not the tax payers money, we're borrowing it.


Then theres the issue of ruining yet more of our countryside, with little doubt that horrid international modern concrete bridges and passways will be built across the countryside which is already being destroyed by those ridiculous windmills the politicians keep putting up.
Whine a little more why won't you, must people like the look of trains and wind turbines in the countryside.


..and the only people who seem avidly in favour of this are those who have an interest in the railways - I do myself, however I haven't seen the justification for spending this amount of money at this time on something like this.
I rarely ride trains but I see the importance of this, transport connections means more money, trains revolutionised transportation and in turn revolutionised our economy, faster trains means faster income of money.


Also, in you and Mr Hammond calling opposition to this system 'NIMBYISM', there's a failure to justify this amount of spending in such times when we have a growing national debt, coupled with the points earlier that we already have sufficent transport links via the sky along with enough transport problems which already need to be fixed.Something like this takes many years to implement, it was bound to run across a time when our economy was in a bad state. If we delay it now then we'll be further behind by the time we're in a state to start the process again. Lots of money has already gone into this, it'd be more wasteful to wait.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's so much more of a hassle, is less enjoyable, could actually take longer and price is dependant on electricity prices and not carbon fuels prices. Further more it is far more convenient for a short journey. Also, I severely doubt you could take all train traffic and stick it in the air without creating an air traffic control disaster.

Any tax levied by the government or a government organisation is passed down the the customer, the customer is the one who pays in the end and not the 'business' because in the words of Milton Friedman you cannot tax a business just as you cannot tax the floor - now as for the air traffic control, i'm sorry but we manage very well with air traffic control as Heathrow at the moment has to manage a plane coming in every 45 seconds whereas if something were to occur wrong with the railway, the whole service would be out as opposed to one plane or one airport being closed.


It's ok, it's not the tax payers money, we're borrowing it.

Then if you are unable to borrow money from private investors or banks, its the case that they do not expect a return/good build to take place. Do not come to me, of which I have no interest in your high speed rail system in order to force me to raise the money you need.


Whine a little more why won't you, must people like the look of trains and wind turbines in the countryside.

I don't believe they do no, hence why theres a campaign by those who live there to prevent this who will have to suffer through this as opposed to the likes of yourself who live elsewhere and do not have to worry about a blotted landscape, noise and falling property prices.

The same applies for the wind turbines which has kicked off a big campaign in Wales to prevent them being built.


I rarely ride trains but I see the importance of this, transport connections means more money, trains revolutionised transportation and in turn revolutionised our economy, faster trains means faster income of money.

This is just drivel, while transport does mean more money (more money for whom may I ask?) it doesn't always work like this - railways are subsidised at the moment and have been because its often hard to run them at a profit (at least with the levels of taxation and regulation we have in this country) so the same is likely to apply to the high speed rail system, which as I said earlier; if private investors are seemingly unwilling to provide investment for this then that should send alarm bells ringing concerning the words 'white' and 'elephant'.


Something like this takes many years to implement, it was bound to run across a time when our economy was in a bad state. If we delay it now then we'll be further behind by the time we're in a state to start the process again. Lots of money has already gone into this, it'd be more wasteful to wait.

I ask again, why should the taxpayers be forced to fund this?

The TaxPayers Alliance (http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?id=26711) has done work on this and has concluded that it is a white elephant scheme.

[StefanWolves]

Theres a lot of controversy in the West Midlands, Counties such as Staffordshire are hugely opposed to it as the track will cut right through peoples villages/towns, and also the fact that Staffordshire won't benefit from HS2 at as their wont be a train stop their.

However I am in favour of this, it was either a third runway or, HS2, thats what the Government said, I cant see David u-turn Cameron going back on this one though. Even though we should have had both a third runway at heathrow and HS2.

[Jordy]

Also, in you and Mr Hammond calling opposition to this system 'NIMBYISM', there's a failure to justify this amount of spending in such times when we have a growing national debt, coupled with the points earlier that we already have sufficent transport links via the sky along with enough transport problems which already need to be fixed.You can't fly from London to Birmingham which is what High Speed 2 is so what on earth are you on about?

The fact is by 2018, our current railways will not be able to keep up with demand and the ever increasing population (Some might say they already cannot). Even if you could fly from London to Birmingham you'd have to spend around 35 minutes getting from central London to Heathrow or Luton (Even more for Gatwick or Stansted) and once you land in Birmingham International, another 30 minutes or so into the city centre plus the price of the additional travel seeing as Airports are out of town.

I see it as sound investment and the business community seem supportive too (Or are they all just train enthusiasts? :/) - Until someone comes up with a viable alternative then it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.