More than £80bn!!!

[Workingman]

That's right, more than £80bn...... for HS2.

First it was £30bn, then £42.6bn, then £70bn (Boris) now £80bn. Next week? Pick a number, any number.

I can see this going the way of so many other government schemes. Billions will be spent on consultants, plans, revised plans, legal wrangles and sweeteners. Oh, hang on, that has already happened. Then one day it will be "discovered" that we cannot afford it, that it will never make a profit and that the project's economic benefits were overstated. Oh, hang on, we already know that.

Quote from Wikipedia:

Peter Mandelson, a key advocate of HS2 when the Labour Party were in government, declared shortly thereafter that HS2 would be an "expensive mistake", and also admitted that the inception of HS2 was "politically driven" to "paint an upbeat view of the future" following the financial crash. He further admitted that the original cost estimates were "almost entirely speculative" and that "perhaps the most glaring gap in the analysis presented to us at the time were the alternative ways of spending £30bn."

And politicians wonder why they are not trusted! Duplicitous barstewards.

[pederito1]

Probably double that with the usual cost over runs if it is ever built. Would join the ranks of the "Utter follies"

[Workingman]

Mandy gives the impression that £30bn was to be set aside for "something" to make out that the future would be bright and rosy. HS2 looks to have been the best "fag packet" idea that Labour could come up with to buy votes.

Folly indeed!

[TheOstrich]

Constructing HS2, like gay marriage, is now a Cameron vanity project. If you want to spend it on infrastructure and create construction jobs, £80bn would go a long way towards renovating our existing run-down transport networks.

We don't need a 225 mph train network in the country, firstly it's simply not going to provide meaningful time benefits. And secondly the eventual cost of fares will price all but the fat-cats out of the travel market.

I've already signed a petition locally against it; I hope it gets scrapped while it's still in the planning phase.

[Suff]

I’d just like to know exactly how useless we are. Projected cost for the line is €7.2bn.

OK, I know they are not creating a new route out of Paris. But I can tell you that the A10 is impacted in several sections and has both roadworks and the carriageway has been moved twice for each of those crossings on the diagram.

£70bn. That is more than 10 times the cost of the French TGV extension. I’m pretty sure the French could build a tunnel to Bordeaux for that cost…..

I do understand that France has more than twice the landmass than the UK with less population. However, dear god, I see the LGV Sud in progress every time I fly over it at the weekend. The whole line, the entire distance, is currently under construction with local companies working on each part of it all the way down the line.

Something like that for the UK would be an excellent spend of UK money. In fact if it was restricted to UK companies and not open to EU companies to bid, I’d say that £70bn would be an excellent injection of cash into the UK business economy. Far better than giving it away in “Aid”.

Infrastructure projects cost the country. That’s why we have central government in the first place. To build the big things that nobody else can do.

What we need to do is keep the moneygrabbers out of it and put the money into companies who will employ locals to do the work.

I know, I know, dream on….

[Workingman]

80bn would go a long way towards renovating our existing run-down transport networks.

Wouldn't it?

Upgrade the East and West coast main lines all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Extend the M5 to Plymouth. Bring the A12 and A14 from our busiest container port, Felixstowe, up to motorway standard. Give East Anglia and Cornwall decent rail services. There might even be enough left over for the much needed fast rail link from Hull to Liverpool via Leeds and Manchester. Infrastructure for most of the country.

I could be wrong, but I can see HS2 bringing on a raft of Balcombe style direct actions along its route.

[Suff]

You missed upgrading the A9 to dual carriageway but I understand that nobody who is not a Scot and has not had to deal with the deadliest road in Scotland would understand.

The point is that high speed rail with new lines actually revitalises local economies and brings money out to the regions from the hubs. Of course the UK will do it badly but that's the UK nowadays isn't it...

Read the LGV SUD wiki page. Increased freight usage, lowered truck usage on the motorways. Better revenue for the rail companies and better service for the passengers. Plus it can be extended much more easily when it's got out of the London commuter belt...

This is core infrastructure stuff and needs to be done. The real issue is that we should be getting the best bang for our buck. Or even looking at the proposed X rail project in California....

We should not assume that upgrading outdated and overstressed roads with more of the same will resolve our issues. It won't.

[Workingman]

French TGV makes sense. Paris to Toulouse or Bordeaux are in the region of 600km, Marseilles, via Lyon, is just short of 700km. Also Paris to Frankfurt, Brussels and Amsterdam are well travelled routes - capitals and financial hub, thanks to the EU.

And yes, I did forget the A1 and A9, sorry 'bout that. The reason none of those things will get done is because they do not involve London. They are truly countrywide infrastructure projects.

[Suff]

Given our Rail landscape, you have to get out of London before you can go National.

HS2 is just part of that. If we don't do it, there will come a time when our rail network becomes a joke. Well more of a joke than it is already.