HS2, whats the current status ?
Discussion
Robertj21a said:
Aren't we just back to the usual argument that if you significantly improve the roads then more people use them ?
Apparently, the received wisdom on the data (which via MOTs etc., should be easy to collate) is that 'we', the UK are driving fewer miles. Whilst in part I would argue that may reflect environmental conscience (demand), I think it more reflects the severe difficulties in being/staying mobile in the first place (supply).Overall, if this projects onto (necessary, but now impossible) business miles, it is bad.
The figures: https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/driving-...
Robertj21a said:
Aren't we just back to the usual argument that if you significantly improve the roads then more people use them ?
No. The issue is that they're at capacity during peak periods and that rarely if ever changes as a result of building more road space. As a consequence, in the worst affected areas the peak period spreads, as people seek to avoid the worst times to travel. The affected network also spreads as people avoid the worst routes. Ultimately most of what you achieve in building new road capacity (be that through widening or new routes) is that you reduce the "spread". So yes, it would undoubtedly have a benefit, but it doesn't solve the problem.It should only ever be part of a wider investment in transport infrastructure as a whole. To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France. As has already been pointed out, to drive on seemingly deserted autoroutes and then complain you're stuck on the M25/M40/M6 etc is to completely ignore the fact that much of the Autoroute network (taking France as the example) is not under the direct pressure from immediate settlements. We have fewer large expanses between those pressure points, which has the effect of congestion seeming to be never-ending on some routes.
Take yourself to many of the European cities and you'll start to see very similar problems to those that we have. The difference is that many have invested on a far greater scale in alternative transport infrastructure as well, which can and will only ever benefit the road network as a consequence.
Unfortunately it's the same old arguments in this country - it was the same when the Channel Tunnel was being brought forward, the same when the M25 was being delivered, and yet no one would now consider those infrastructure schemes to be dispensable.
Swervin_Mervin said:
To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France.
Not really, that depends on the metric in use.How about on the density of motorway? We fall well behind Benelux:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained...
Digga said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France.
Not really, that depends on the metric in use.How about on the density of motorway? We fall well behind Benelux:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained...
ETA - looking at your motorway density we seem to be largely up there with Germany, albeit the North of England has as high a density of motorways as Benelux. Only north midlands that's down.
Edited by Swervin_Mervin on Friday 23 August 15:28
Swervin_Mervin said:
Population density, as I said. And there's no "not really" about it - England is the most densely populated (proper) country in Europe. Only Belgium and Netherlands are close.
ETA - looking at your motorway density we seem to be largely up there with Germany, albeit the North of England has as high a density of motorways as Benelux. Only north midlands that's down.
If our population is denser, then so should our roads be.ETA - looking at your motorway density we seem to be largely up there with Germany, albeit the North of England has as high a density of motorways as Benelux. Only north midlands that's down.
Edited by Swervin_Mervin on Friday 23 August 15:28
If you look at the UK map, you can see the glaring flaws - a gap of low density, right across the Midlands. You know, right where all the motorways snaffoo, each and every weekday.
Ministers knew it was over budget before they signed it off-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49450297
Its like they saw the mess Edinburgh made of its trams and thought they'd scale it up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49450297
Its like they saw the mess Edinburgh made of its trams and thought they'd scale it up.
glazbagun said:
Ministers knew it was over budget before they signed it off-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49450297
Its like they saw the mess Edinburgh made of its trams and thought they'd scale it up.
Who paid for Edinburgh trams - was it English tax payers via subsidy as well as Scottish residents via local taxes?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49450297
Its like they saw the mess Edinburgh made of its trams and thought they'd scale it up.
eliot said:
I mainly use the west coast line into london or the midlands. The trains are always busy, even off peak.
Only the late night piss head specials are quiet - which i avoid (unless i’m pissed)
That's when the "late night piss head specials" are running. I don't often get them, but a bunch of us went to a rock concert in Birmingham last November and got the train home - we had to leave the gig before it finished to get the last train back north.Only the late night piss head specials are quiet - which i avoid (unless i’m pissed)
So again, we're back to roads...
Digga said:
If our population is denser, then so should our roads be.
If you look at the UK map, you can see the glaring flaws - a gap of low density, right across the Midlands. You know, right where all the motorways snaffoo, each and every weekday.
So where would those motorways in the Midlands go to/from? Apart from Derby-Nottingham each major city is pretty much motorway linked to each other. Any new motorway will duplicate another, unless you try build swindon- Oxford/ Birmingham. The most useful thing that could be done is turning the a14 or A50 into motorways rather than dual carriageways.If you look at the UK map, you can see the glaring flaws - a gap of low density, right across the Midlands. You know, right where all the motorways snaffoo, each and every weekday.
alfaman said:
Who paid for Edinburgh trams - was it English tax payers via subsidy as well as Scottish residents via local taxes?
It was the city council, with a £72M contribution from the Scottish government. A 30 year loan by the coincil is to cover the overrun from additinal estimates.Who is paying for Crossrail, HS1, Channel Tunnel, HS2? English or UK taxpayers?
Swervin_Mervin said:
Unfortunately it's the same old arguments in this country - it was the same when the Channel Tunnel was being brought forward, the same when the M25 was being delivered, and yet no one would now consider those infrastructure schemes to be dispensable.
Correct, in a way you haven't thought of. Living in the North whether there's a Chunnel or M25, or even a way of lopping 5 mins of a train trip to London, makes no difference to my life whatsoever. Nor to the majority of Northeners who look at the HS2 vanity project and shake their heads in disbelief. Utter, utter waste of money better spent elsewhere.popeyewhite said:
Correct, in a way you haven't thought of. Living in the North whether there's a Chunnel or M25, or even a way of lopping 5 mins of a train trip to London, makes no difference to my life whatsoever. Nor to the majority of Northeners who look at the HS2 vanity project and shake their heads in disbelief. Utter, utter waste of money better spent elsewhere.
Living in the Midlands it makes no difference to me whether theres a TransPennine link, or HS2. Both massive wastes of money/vanity projects.Swervin_Mervin said:
No. The issue is that they're at capacity during peak periods and that rarely if ever changes as a result of building more road space. As a consequence, in the worst affected areas the peak period spreads, as people seek to avoid the worst times to travel. The affected network also spreads as people avoid the worst routes. Ultimately most of what you achieve in building new road capacity (be that through widening or new routes) is that you reduce the "spread". So yes, it would undoubtedly have a benefit, but it doesn't solve the problem.
It should only ever be part of a wider investment in transport infrastructure as a whole. To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France. As has already been pointed out, to drive on seemingly deserted autoroutes and then complain you're stuck on the M25/M40/M6 etc is to completely ignore the fact that much of the Autoroute network (taking France as the example) is not under the direct pressure from immediate settlements. We have fewer large expanses between those pressure points, which has the effect of congestion seeming to be never-ending on some routes.
Take yourself to many of the European cities and you'll start to see very similar problems to those that we have. The difference is that many have invested on a far greater scale in alternative transport infrastructure as well, which can and will only ever benefit the road network as a consequence.
Unfortunately it's the same old arguments in this country - it was the same when the Channel Tunnel was being brought forward, the same when the M25 was being delivered, and yet no one would now consider those infrastructure schemes to be dispensable.
I agree with much of what you say there, but I can't help but feel that HS2 will swallow up too much of the budget to the detriment of more pressing projects elsewhere, especially in the North and South West. I've yet to be convinced that it is money well spent, though fully accept the capacity argument I can't understand why we can't just build more lines along the existing WCM route?It should only ever be part of a wider investment in transport infrastructure as a whole. To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France. As has already been pointed out, to drive on seemingly deserted autoroutes and then complain you're stuck on the M25/M40/M6 etc is to completely ignore the fact that much of the Autoroute network (taking France as the example) is not under the direct pressure from immediate settlements. We have fewer large expanses between those pressure points, which has the effect of congestion seeming to be never-ending on some routes.
Take yourself to many of the European cities and you'll start to see very similar problems to those that we have. The difference is that many have invested on a far greater scale in alternative transport infrastructure as well, which can and will only ever benefit the road network as a consequence.
Unfortunately it's the same old arguments in this country - it was the same when the Channel Tunnel was being brought forward, the same when the M25 was being delivered, and yet no one would now consider those infrastructure schemes to be dispensable.
Blue62 said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
No. The issue is that they're at capacity during peak periods and that rarely if ever changes as a result of building more road space. As a consequence, in the worst affected areas the peak period spreads, as people seek to avoid the worst times to travel. The affected network also spreads as people avoid the worst routes. Ultimately most of what you achieve in building new road capacity (be that through widening or new routes) is that you reduce the "spread". So yes, it would undoubtedly have a benefit, but it doesn't solve the problem.
It should only ever be part of a wider investment in transport infrastructure as a whole. To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France. As has already been pointed out, to drive on seemingly deserted autoroutes and then complain you're stuck on the M25/M40/M6 etc is to completely ignore the fact that much of the Autoroute network (taking France as the example) is not under the direct pressure from immediate settlements. We have fewer large expanses between those pressure points, which has the effect of congestion seeming to be never-ending on some routes.
Take yourself to many of the European cities and you'll start to see very similar problems to those that we have. The difference is that many have invested on a far greater scale in alternative transport infrastructure as well, which can and will only ever benefit the road network as a consequence.
Unfortunately it's the same old arguments in this country - it was the same when the Channel Tunnel was being brought forward, the same when the M25 was being delivered, and yet no one would now consider those infrastructure schemes to be dispensable.
I agree with much of what you say there, but I can't help but feel that HS2 will swallow up too much of the budget to the detriment of more pressing projects elsewhere, especially in the North and South West. I've yet to be convinced that it is money well spent, though fully accept the capacity argument I can't understand why we can't just build more lines along the existing WCM route?It should only ever be part of a wider investment in transport infrastructure as a whole. To compare us with the continent is largely a fallacy as well - England in particular is one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, by some margin . In fact, once you strip out the tiny islands and principalities England is the most densely populated country - twice that of Germany, and 4 times that of France. As has already been pointed out, to drive on seemingly deserted autoroutes and then complain you're stuck on the M25/M40/M6 etc is to completely ignore the fact that much of the Autoroute network (taking France as the example) is not under the direct pressure from immediate settlements. We have fewer large expanses between those pressure points, which has the effect of congestion seeming to be never-ending on some routes.
Take yourself to many of the European cities and you'll start to see very similar problems to those that we have. The difference is that many have invested on a far greater scale in alternative transport infrastructure as well, which can and will only ever benefit the road network as a consequence.
Unfortunately it's the same old arguments in this country - it was the same when the Channel Tunnel was being brought forward, the same when the M25 was being delivered, and yet no one would now consider those infrastructure schemes to be dispensable.
mcdjl said:
Digga said:
If our population is denser, then so should our roads be.
If you look at the UK map, you can see the glaring flaws - a gap of low density, right across the Midlands. You know, right where all the motorways snaffoo, each and every weekday.
So where would those motorways in the Midlands go to/from? Apart from Derby-Nottingham each major city is pretty much motorway linked to each other. Any new motorway will duplicate another, unless you try build swindon- Oxford/ Birmingham. The most useful thing that could be done is turning the a14 or A50 into motorways rather than dual carriageways.If you look at the UK map, you can see the glaring flaws - a gap of low density, right across the Midlands. You know, right where all the motorways snaffoo, each and every weekday.
Anyone who's traveled in Europe will know that there is normally a choice of motorway-grade routes for most journeys. So if/when there is an incident or roadworks, which would otherwise hugely impact journey times, there is an alternative.
Bringing the whole A38 up to scratch, as well as your suggestions, would work.
Bringing the belegured and much hindered A34 (next to useless in many sections) back to some semblance of trunk road status too.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff