Better ways of spending the HS2 money?

[whole diary]

[Witham Bobby]

The Great British Transport Competition has come up with this ...

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/16562/attachments/original/1558213640/GBTC_REPORT_FINAL_REVIEWED_18MAY2019.pdf

Much of which will be of interest, I hope.

[Red Squirrel]

To make sense of this, we have to ignore the fundamental error at the heart of the premise. There IS no HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) money; HS2 will be an investment funded by borrowing.

That said, I think we've seen this before.

Interesting to see a road scheme comes out at number one:

The environmental impact is likely to be minimal and air quality may actually improve, as vehicles will be able to travel at more optimal speeds, resulting in shorter journey times and
engines being used more efficiently.

You couldn't make it up.

Further down the list is High Speed UK^▸ (United Kingdom) North. This looks broadly similar to Northern Powerhouse Rail; somehow it manages to weigh in at £18.1 billion even though it uses the Woodhead route. Perhaps that's because it wouldn't be able to use the stations that HS2 is going to pay for?

Four tracking from Rugby to Birmingham looks interesting, too... particularly through Coventry...

...the land remains in the ownership of Network Rail, making it a uniquely well integrated and easily initiated project

...

Part of this would involve upgrading the 8 suburban stations along the line.

A quick look on Google Maps suggests that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) does own some land alongside part of the route, but certainly not all of it. And for 'upgrading... stations' read 'rebuilding'...

All this, for £1.5 billion? I think that must be an accounting error; surely the decimal point is in the wrong place?

I note that Tony Berkeley is one of the authors. Nuff said.

Some of it's good though - MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) electrification, for example.

[IndustryInsider]

To make sense of this, we have to ignore the fundamental error at the heart of the premise. There IS no HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) money; HS2 will be an investment funded by borrowing.

A point completely lost on most people it seems.

[Richard Fairhurst]

This proposal seeks to build cycle paths alongside the 2,300 miles of motorway network and 5,300 miles of Highways England managed A-roads in Great Britain. COST: £1.82 billion

I despair. That is probably the most fruitless way of spending £1.82bn on cycling I can imagine.

[ellendune]

It comes from the so called Taxpayers Alliance so zero credibility.

I notice that none of the projects have any costed benefits.

Their proposal for 4 track from Rugby to Birmingham has been discounted several times because of the disruption it would cause to services during construction and I am sure it was said there would need to be some demolition of property. 

Who wants to cycle along side a motorway?

[TaplowGreen]

It comes from the so called Taxpayers Alliance so zero credibility.

Out of interest, why is that the case?

[Reading General]

All interurban based road and national rail projects, except for the Leeds S-Bahn idea, is nobody interested in how we move around our towns and cities? It's still the one area that is ignored but the area which would benefit the most people. I can get to many places by rail, but how I get anywhere in these places is of no interest it seems.

What about giving this money that doesn't exist to regions and letting them spend it on what they think is right?

[ellendune]

It comes from the so called Taxpayers Alliance so zero credibility.

Out of interest, why is that the case?

They are a one of a number of neocon groups at that address whose funding is less than transparent. The group includes:

Brexit Central
Business for Britain (until 7 October 2015)
Civitas
European Foundation
Global Vision
Global Warming Policy Foundation
Leave Means Leave
Migration Watch UK^▸ (United Kingdom)
New Culture Forum
Taxpayer's Alliance

Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tufton_Street

They are climate change deniers and were promotors of Brexit. However, the main reason is that they have always been very anti-rail. 

Edited to add list and link

[DidcotPunter]

It comes from the so called Taxpayers Alliance so zero credibility.

Out of interest, why is that the case?

They are a one of a number of neocon groups at that address whose funding is less than transparent. They are climate change deniers and were promotors of Brexit. However, the main reason is that they have always been very anti-rail. 

Agreed, absolutely zero credibility for me too. Their anti-rail stance is part of their general anti-public spending agenda. I believe that some investigative journalism has shown links to (if not funding from) right-wing organisations in the US funded by the likes of the Koch brothers (just google them if you want to understand their agenda).

[eightonedee]

.. ..and in the light of recent experience in costing major infrastructure projects I guess we should take their figures with more than a pinch of salt!

[CyclingSid]

Quote
This proposal seeks to build cycle paths alongside the 2,300 miles of motorway network and 5,300 miles of Highways England managed A-roads in Great Britain. COST: £1.82 billion

I despair. That is probably the most fruitless way of spending £1.82bn on cycling I can imagine.

Not saying anything about the credibility, or not. But the fact that a government is saying £1.82 billion in relation to cycling certainly makes a change.

But talk is cheap.

[Marlburian]

Quote
This proposal seeks to build cycle paths alongside the 2,300 miles of motorway network and 5,300 miles of Highways England managed A-roads in Great Britain. COST: £1.82 billion

I despair. That is probably the most fruitless way of spending £1.82bn on cycling I can imagine.

Not saying anything about the credibility, or not. But the fact that a government is saying £1.82 billion in relation to cycling certainly makes a change.

But talk is cheap.

Speaking as a former keen cyclist, I would not enjoy riding alongside such busy roads.

[TaplowGreen]

.. ..and in the light of recent experience in costing major infrastructure projects I guess we should take their figures with more than a pinch of salt!

………...there is one in particular that springs to mind! 

[Red Squirrel]

Not saying anything about the credibility, or not. But the fact that a government is saying £1.82 billion in relation to cycling certainly makes a change.

But talk is cheap.

These suggestions were made by the Taxpayers Alliance, not the government.

Another one that made me chortle was:

REBUILD CULLOMPTON STATION
[...]
This is a very simple but effective project that integrates almost seamlessly with the existing rail network.

For anyone who doesn't know why the words 'simple' and 'seamlessly' tickled my funny bone, see here: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5272.0 Full disclosure: I am very much in favour of opening more stations closer to where people live, but recognise that it is hardly ever simple. Portway Parkway is about as simple as it gets, but has taken the best part of 20 years to get to a planning application...

[Red Squirrel]

.. ..and in the light of recent experience in costing major infrastructure projects I guess we should take their figures with more than a pinch of salt!

………...there is one in particular that springs to mind! 

I think I can guess which one you mean: The Lower Thames Crossing?