Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35356884)

Does it have to pay for itself? Does the road network pay for itself? The point of State-sponsored infrastructure developments is their wider enabling effect on the economy, not that they should be profitable in and of themselves.



I'm not certain that a convincing argument has been made that spending money on HS2 means not spending it on the existing WCML.

Originally Posted by richard1960 (Post 35356887)

i think the road network probably does pay for itself chris its often stated the amount collected in road tax exceeds that spent on the roads by some so it goes without saying some is filtered into general taxation pot.

Yes chris i agree with state sponsered infrastruture where a case has been made without exception,i just think in HS2s case it has not been made just why is it so desperately needed.

Its going to be out of range of most ordinary folk and will business users make the required use its hard to tell.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35356909)

And look at the value that has added...

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35356915)

Business and tourism travel (the TGV).

Originally Posted by richard1960 (Post 35356887)

i think the road network probably does pay for itself chris its often stated the amount collected in road tax exceeds that spent on the roads by some so it goes without saying some is filtered into general taxation pot.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35356928)

I was on the high speed rail link connecting London to Kent today. I've been on it before and it really is very good. Comfortable, modern and fast. I had experience going the same route while at University, before the HS1 was finished, and it's significantly better now so whenever I make that trip I always take it.

I can't understand why we shouldn't roll out the network across the country. It's fantastic. Imagine the benefits of the major cities and commuter hubs being connected by high speed rail, suddenly the entire country will be within a short amount of time from each other.

I see people saying that it 'only' saves 23 minutes. That isn't an insignificant amount of time to save for that journey. If we were talking about London to Glasgow then maybe but saving 23 minutes on the relatively short Journey to Birmingham is noticeable.

The only problem I can see if we're too slow in building it. We should have started building already and be going to Manchester now, with Birmingham a mere milestone along the way.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35356932)

The last time i used a train on a regular basis was going from london to dover (i was in the army at the time in '81) and that trip was a proper chore ,so yes i can understand the benefits of the HS1 ,but with this being Britain it will be the next century before we get a decent national network such as france and we may be using flying cars by then :)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35356942)

We shouldn't be resigned to such a fate, we should press ahead with plans to bring High Speed rail nationwide as soon as possible. A epic undertaking to improve british transport by providing a new, modern backbone to the network.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35356990)

32billion for a single rail link is way excessive, I am normally an advocate of investment but this is just stupid. So its saves 49mins for a service how much of the population use?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35357014)

Again. The time saved is not insignificant. It can be the difference between a comfortable trip and a awkward one. The difference between a business deciding being based outside of London isn't a disadvantage and deciding that it's just not close enough to their clients.



I used HS1 yesterday. I have used it a number of times and I have used the Eurostar quite a bit as well.



It also has European rivals who do have High Speed Rail. The cool thing is once connected we can be part of a High Speed network across the continent. Manchester to Paris, London to Berlin and so on.