High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[AndyLandy]

On a slightly more amusing note:

http://newsthump.com/2012/01/10/first-hs2-drivers-strike-scheduled-for-2027/

Rail travellers are bracing themselves for yet more disruption on Britain’s railways, as Bob Crow made the case for industrial action on HS2 in approximately fifteen years time.

 

[jon0844]

That's not even funny.. he almost did that soon after we got the Olympics, suggesting legal action if members weren't suitably compensated (and many years on, staff DID get compensated quite well, so you could consider it a good call).

 

[Chris125]

I have just heard extracts from the Transport Secretarys pro HS2 speech ,Im sorry to say personally I found it rather bumbling and unconvincing .

Perhaps it was his deliver, the transcript isn't too bad with a couple of passages that show the DfT are finally starting to understand the right way to sell the project:

Without the capacity provided by HS2 the main road and rail lines linking eight of our 10 largest cities will quite simply be overwhelmed. And by the way to those who won’t accept this we really do deserve better than anecdotes about spare room at off-peak hours.

You might as well argue that Britain doesn’t need new power stations because we’ve got more electricity than we can use at one am. Or that Heathrow isn’t full because planes land there every day with empty seats.

But this isn’t the only question that’s asked about capacity. There’s another. Are you sure growth will continue?

Yes, they say - ok, maybe rail travel has doubled in just over a decade - but how do you know it will go up again? Maybe new kinds of IT will make us all to stay at home and HS2 will be out of date.

These people are plain wrong. History shows it. The invention of the telegram didn’t stop the railway revolution. The invention of the telephone didn’t stop the car or the airplane.

And the invention of the smartphone has been accompanied by a doubling of rail travel in Britain in just over a decade. They are indisputable facts. As our economy changes and strengthens people will move more - not less.

...so yes, later this year we will publish a new cost benefit analysis as part of the wider Strategic Case - and it will be positive. But don’t think the cost benefit analysis is the whole case for the line or captures the whole benefit. It is a narrow estimate on a narrow range of factors.

For instance the current cost benefit ratio caps growth in demand for High Speed Two after 2036. It assumes - for the sake of calculation because that’s how the standard model of assessment works that the line won’t get any busier after that. But of course it will.

And if – instead - in the model we capped the number of passengers using HS2 in 2059 which would be perfectly reasonable the benefit cost ratio would effectively double.

The model also more or less omits because of the way its rules are written the broader gain from infrastructure investment. As if growth happens by default. As if there’s no economic difference between a good modern train and a horse and cart. But the real world just isn’t like that.

Chris

 

[Ironside]

Allegedly the is a good pro HS2 article on the front page of The Times today, but it's behind the paywall. So worth a look for those with a subscription.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/danielfinkelstein/article3865753.ece

 

[Manchester77]

I'm looking forward to the news tonight which will probably include this! I'd imagine one or two 'armchair experts' will come forward during family meal times and spur a debate. Or in my case it doesn't happen because I rebut what they just said except with facts rather than crap like 'double deck the trains, simples' as my dad said...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On BBC news now

 

[Xavi]

Opinion in The Times is excellent, a wider broader viewpoint on what makes an economy better. Mobility, links and bringing people together as promoted by the late Steve Jobs at Apple. Did he think Apple could do all its business over telecoms, Internet and video conferencing? No. He brought people together and that's what HS2 will do for UK plc. Employees may live in say Nottinghamshire after HS2 and work from home many days with HS2 being the enabler to bring clients or colleagues together in London or Birmingham or Leeds when needed without the need for a 5am alarm. Without HS2 London and its suburbs will remain the only option for residence in many instances.

I do what in many companies is a London job from Devon. I'm willing to make the 5am sacrifice when necessary, 1 or 2 times a week. With the links that HS2 will bring many more will choose Derbyshire over Deptford and their employees will be more willing too. It will not be a daily commute. Home working and HS2 working together to spread the wealth of the UK.

JM Keynes wasn't totally wrong either - there will be economic benefits from the capital investment. Jobs, tax receipts, supply chain etc.

We must have HS2 and more. The car has a future too, but rail will be king for urban commuting and long distance.

 

[jon0844]

I bet hardly anyone has considered how much of that money being spent on HS2 comes back directly and indirectly through taxes, and VAT from people spending the money they earn etc.

Even when someone said on the BBC about it all going to a greedy construction firm, I wondered who that person thought did the work and if it would be better to not have workers in employment to build it. As if all the money just went to a CEO that funnelled all the money into an offshore bank account.

 

[HSTEd]

Those profits from HS2 for the Treasury could pay for a lot of the spurs people are clamouring for.... £30bn total 'profit' would buy six York-Newcastle sections according to most estimates.

 

[anthony263]

Those profits from HS2 for the Treasury could pay for a lot of the spurs people are clamouring for.... £30bn total 'profit' would buy six York-Newcastle sections according to most estimates.

A section running through Oxfordshire to near Bristol would be nice brining Bristol to 49 minutes from London and Cardiff to 65 minutes from London.

That would free some capacity on the GW mainline as well as help Plymouth get faster links to London

 

[jon0844]

The south west does seem like it could be the next place for a high speed, high capacity line.. but I also expect similar opposition!

 

[Kettledrum]

Even if we assume that the figure of £1,700 per tax payers is right (which ignores all the tax paid by companies) then over the time it takes to build both phases of HS2 (i.e. from now till 2033, so I've assumed 19 years) then that works out as an extra £7.46 per person per month in tax (or £5.45 per person per month if up to half the cost is paid back over the 20 years after opening).

If the actual build costs are on budget (£42.6bn), then it works out as £6.22 per person per month in tax. Whilst if it comes in at £28.2bn (so £0 of the £14.4bn of contingencies are used) then it falls to £4.12 per person per month in tax (or £2.09 per person per month if up to half the cost is paid back over the 20 years after opening).

I assumed that the cost of the loan for the half of the project value doubles the amount borrowed over 20 years, however this would make the loan more expensive than most mortgages. It is also a worse case, as the actual amount required to pay off half the project costs is lower than the figures above, even though I have allowed for the full amount of interest.


However you look at it the amount it will cost each tax payer in their take home pay each month is fairly small. Even if it was totally tax payer funded.

I'm sorry, but I don't think calculations of the construction cost per taxpayer help at all - although the media love to quote such figures. By using such figures, the media are misleading people into

(1) forgetting that all the passengers using HS2 will in effect be paying a contribution towards the running costs through their fares, and

(2) ignoring that we will be giving a fantastic infrastructure asset to our children and grandchildren which could be used for the next 150 years. If you divide the cost by all the taxpayers who will be paying tax over 150 years, you come up with a really tiny cost per taxpayer, but of course this doesn't give the media the sensational story that they want to fuel the anti-HS2 campaign.

 

[Ironside]

I'm sorry, but I don't think calculations of the construction cost per taxpayer help at all - although the media love to quote such figures. By using such figures, the media are misleading people into

(1) forgetting that all the passengers using HS2 will in effect be paying a contribution towards the running costs through their fares, and

(2) ignoring that we will be giving a fantastic infrastructure asset to our children and grandchildren which could be used for the next 150 years. If you divide the cost by all the taxpayers who will be paying tax over 150 years, you come up with a really tiny cost per taxpayer, but of course this doesn't give the media the sensational story that they want to fuel the anti-HS2 campaign.

Very true and also not all money passes directly through private individuals hands. Businesses also pay a large wedge of cash.

 

[The Ham]

I'm sorry, but I don't think calculations of the construction cost per taxpayer help at all - although the media love to quote such figures. By using such figures, the media are misleading people into

(1) forgetting that all the passengers using HS2 will in effect be paying a contribution towards the running costs through their fares, and

(2) ignoring that we will be giving a fantastic infrastructure asset to our children and grandchildren which could be used for the next 150 years. If you divide the cost by all the taxpayers who will be paying tax over 150 years, you come up with a really tiny cost per taxpayer, but of course this doesn't give the media the sensational story that they want to fuel the anti-HS2 campaign.

Very true and also not all money passes directly through private individuals hands. Businesses also pay a large wedge of cash.

All of which is true, the point I was making, was even using the figures that the anti's use to scare people with (i.e.trying to mak people think how can I afford to pay £1,700), in reality the actual cost (even making it a tax pay funded scheme, which it's not) "per tax payer" is a farily small amount on an on going basis.

It is also true that there are various other sources of tax funding, as such the amount seen in direct pay packet taxation would be about 1/3 of my figures, i.e. the tax element in an individules take home pay would be between 70p and £2.50 a month

 

[PR1Berske]

Very interesting from Ed Balls

Direct Link - https://twitter.com/bbcmtd/status/378219417621909504

No exact cap, so I don't know what he means by "too high", but encouraging to see that Labour are thinking about economic credibility post-2015. If it looks as though they could be landed with the "spend spend spend" tag then HS2 would be the best thing to cut first.

And good on him for coming out with it.

 

[NSEFAN]

No exact cap, so I don't know what he means by "too high", but encouraging to see that Labour are thinking about economic credibility post-2015. If it looks as though they could be landed with the "spend spend spend" tag then HS2 would be the best thing to cut first.

And good on him for coming out with it.

I'm sure it happens a lot in government politics: Cut a project that didn't even get properly started, then boast about all the savings.

If that happens to HS2, I just hope said "savings" are actually passed on to a useful project. I personally have my doubts...

 

[The Ham]

Very interesting from Ed Balls

Direct Link - https://twitter.com/bbcmtd/status/378219417621909504

No exact cap, so I don't know what he means by "too high", but encouraging to see that Labour are thinking about economic credibility post-2015. If it looks as though they could be landed with the "spend spend spend" tag then HS2 would be the best thing to cut first.

And good on him for coming out with it.

HS2 has taken a credibility knock, so what? What he's said is just political point scoring. The main concern from a lot of "joe public" is associated with the cost. Therefore apealling to the masses by apearing to share their concerns, whilst those in favour of HS2 read it that HS2 will be built and just that elements of phase 2 may not get built if the costs get to high.

 

[Geezertronic]

Very interesting from Ed Balls

Direct Link - https://twitter.com/bbcmtd/status/378219417621909504

No exact cap, so I don't know what he means by "too high", but encouraging to see that Labour are thinking about economic credibility post-2015. If it looks as though they could be landed with the "spend spend spend" tag then HS2 would be the best thing to cut first.

And good on him for coming out with it.

I am sure you spend your days searching the Internet for anything that is possibly anti-HS2.... the fact is he is doing his job as Shadow Chancellor and (as mentioned already) politically point scoring (especially since it was the previous Labour Government who screwed up the finances in the first place)

Ed Balls has a tendancy to speak a lot of balls anyway

 

[PR1Berske]

I am sure you spend your days searching the Internet for anything that is possibly anti-HS2.... the fact is he is doing his job as Shadow Chancellor and (as mentioned already) politically point scoring (especially since it was the previous Labour Government who screwed up the finances in the first place)

Ed Balls has a tendancy to speak a lot of balls anyway

Well indeed it was Labour who dragged the country into the longest, deepest recession in peace times which is why I'm interested to see just how sincere this new found fiscal responsibility actually is....

 

[JohnB57]

Ed Balls has a tendancy to speak a lot of balls anyway

Good work mate. Deep...

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think you'll find it is. In fact, it's an extremely common problem, and has been for a very long time.

Is it any wonder that the media outlets that are the least progressive/open to large-scale change (or rather, just outright reactionary) are those with the highest age of average readership?

Or perhaps you'll admit that it isn't. Those who are retired and oppose HS2 tend to feature on the news reports because everyone else is at work. It's very easy to have a pop at NIMBY's if something doesn't affect you directly.

In terms of newspapers, with the exception of the Guardian and the Indy there isn't a lot of support for HS2. I regularly read the Daily Telegraph but that hasn't persuaded me to oppose HS2, in fact it's quite the opposite!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You think any significant number of younger people could afford any ot those absurdly expensive houses?

You are clearly completely oblivious to the kind of salary that some 30 something’s are able to command in the South East! PM me and I'll happily quote you some examples!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there the same anti-HS2 sentiment throughout the route, or is it mostly targeted in Bucks? I expect as you go further north, less people are seeing it as some sort of disaster that will make their property values go through the floor (which I don't think will ever happen anyway).

I concur that it is mostly in Bucks and along the route through the West Midlands. Everywhere else is so desperate for investment that they are prepared to grin and bear all the disruption. I think things would have been rather different if the Peak District / South Pennines had been affected.

 

[Carlisle]

Why is HS2 so different that even "enthusiasts" are against it?

I'm not totally against HS2 but I feel enthusiasts many who have lived through years of a declining rail system starved of cash just to keep certain lines and stations merely open (an that was a time when the railway had about £1billion subsidy rather than the £5billion today )know there are viable much cheaper alternatives that have not been given proper consideration by the government ,plus the fact that our Victorian engineers and todays chinese HS lines of similar lengtl were built in about 5 years so why is one of the worlds strongest economy's going to take 20 +years to complete

 

[RichmondCommu]

There's no "business case" for the NHS or the police force either. The state makes a financial loss providing those services. Perhaps we should abolish them, too?

I'm sorry but that's a rather silly comparison. Without a fully functioning police force there would be anarchy; I don't think the same could be said of HS2!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

plus the fact that our Victorian engineers and todays chinese HS lines of similar lengtl were built in about 5 years so why is one of the worlds strongest economy's going to take 20 +years to complete

For the simple reason that as a country we are skint and need to spread the cost of constuction.

 

[Ironside]

plus the fact that our Victorian engineers and todays chinese HS lines of similar lengtl were built in about 5 years so why is one of the worlds strongest economy's going to take 20 +years to complete

It takes longer because there is a desire to spread the costs over several years, in the uk construction is a lot more expencive and complicated to undertake because of the desire to limit the noise pollution and environmental blight. Also the beurocracy is a lot more time consuming than in a command economy where once a decision is made it gets done and there are no rights to appeal.

 

[jon0844]

Many people who argue about high ticket prices believe we should a) renationalise and b) subsidise tickets and consider rail travel (or other travel, such as buses) as being a public service that the taxpayer funds.

The current way of thinking is of course for the traveller to pay his or her own way as much as possible.

Now I assume those who think we should have a public funded railway network, with cheaper tickets, must therefore think we should pay for HS2 and all other rail projects ourselves and accept that it cannot make a profit, as that's not what it is about. In effect, rail will become just like the NHS, education, policing etc.

However, I am sure the same people are actually wanting someone else to pay for things AND get the cheap travel.

 

[BlythPower]

Well indeed it was Labour who dragged the country into the longest, deepest recession in peace times which is why I'm interested to see just how sincere this new found fiscal responsibility actually is....

Wow. I never realised that Labour had such far reaching influence that they were able to trigger a global banking collapse. Strange, though, that the economy was recovering steadily until May 2010 and has been turned into a basket case since then. If you think the Tories have any sense of fiscal responsibility just look at the billions they're allowing that dribbling idiot Michael Gove to waste.

Back on topic, HS2 phase one will be forced through by whichever party's in government. However, it'll be so grotesquely overbudget that phase two will never be built. It will, as predicted by the PAC, be a purely London-centric development.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Wow. I never realised that Labour had such far reaching influence that they were able to trigger a global banking collapse. Strange, though, that the economy was recovering steadily until May 2010 and has been turned into a basket case since then. If you think the Tories have any sense of fiscal responsibility just look at the billions they're allowing that dribbling idiot Michael Gove to waste.

Hang on a minute, it was the Labour government that was spending money like there was no tomorrow! As a nation we have to start reducing our levels of debt. And for the record I'm a life long Labour voter!

 

[HSTEd]

As a nation we have to start reducing our levels of debt. And for the record I'm a life long Labour voter!

Why?

You do realise that government debt values in the UK are at historically low levels?
Japan also demonstrates that you can drive public debt values very high without the supposed bond vigilantes turning a country into Greece. (Japan's public debt is over two hundred percent of GDP).

The reason the Government makes such abig deal over the deficit is because they saw the opportunity to smash what little remains of the pre 1979 consensus.

 

[joeykins82]

Labour could've slightly lessened the impact of the global banking collapse by following a counter cyclical spending policy but the real impact came because they (and the Major and Thatcher governments before them) were completely in thrall to the financial services sector (I'm loathe to refer to it as an industry as industry suggests the production of something worthwhile at the end) and the treasury couldn't see beyond the short term tax receipts they were getting. There was no irresponsible orgy of public spending; that's a myth being peddled by the low-tax brigade who want to see all government spending reduced or eliminated in order to save a few % on their tax bills.

If you've got an hour spare then Mark Blyth (Professor of International Political Economy at Brown University) gave a talk at Google on the subject of austerity and its origins that's worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM

 

[RichmondCommu]

Why?

You do realise that government debt values in the UK are at historically low levels?
Japan also demonstrates that you can drive public debt values very high without the supposed bond vigilantes turning a country into Greece. (Japan's public debt is over two hundred percent of GDP).

Yes I do thank you. However that is no excuse to carry on borrowing! Japan's exports mean that they have a much greater chance of trading their way out of debt than we have.

The reason the Government makes such abig deal over the deficit is because they saw the opportunity to smash what little remains of the pre 1979 consensus.

Oh don't be so ridiculous! Are you suggesting that we go back to the 1970's economic model?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There was no irresponsible orgy of public spending; that's a myth being peddled by the low-tax brigade who want to see all government spending reduced or eliminated in order to save a few % on their tax bills.

You're flying in the face of reality here. Public spending went through the roof and now we're paying the price. And what's wrong with low taxes? Paying 50% tax is depressing.

 

[BlythPower]

Paying 50% tax is depressing.

That must be why so few people did. The rest 'avoided' it by various means.