Spending Reform to pay for £34bn high speed rail link

[Crazedmum]

The government will confirm in tomorrow's Spending Review (20th October) that it is planning to fund HS2, the high speed rail scheme at a cost of £34bn. Do you feel that this is a good use of public money?

Yes we are years behind other countries on high speed rail. Investment in infrastructure is vital to our future, it should also help regions outside the south-east grow as the inequalities between regions is a cause for concern.

The project was announced by the Labour government back in March. High Speed Rail Link Our railway network badly needs upgrading.

Surely the £34 billion (and how often do these projects come within budget?) would benefit more people if it was spent on making our existing transport system work? Not on a completely new rail line which would shave a few minutes off a journey time for those few people that can afford to use it.
Anyway, I read that Philip Hammond, Transport Secretary, said "this country is too small for more than one economic hub". ie he thinks this plan will take money from the regions for the benefit of the South East.

We should be grabbing hold of all capital investment projects at them moment with both hands. They will help our economic recovery and keep people employed for a long time. Far from 'taking money from the regions' moving business out of the South East will make it easier to connect other cities & it is a vital step forward to rejuvenate the rest of the UK. It was one of the reasons behind the original plan and the Coalition is bring forward the start date some 2 or 3 years. The S.E is congested & over-priced because of the lack of housing & concentration of population and jobs. Can't continue

Well-managed capital investment on infrastructure is the best sort of public spending. It is one of the few sorts of public spending that can genuinely be described as "investment".

BSF was appallingly managed capital spending. The Tube PFI deals (actually, most of Labour's PFI deals) were terrible. I am all for the principle of sharing risk with private companies but the price has be reasonable, the contractual conditions fair (eg you should be able to change lightbulbs in new buildings yourself, without paying the company £2000) and the risk transfer real.

To be honest £34bn sounds like too high a price to me (if that is the price). However, in principle, I am in favour. It is one of those things where the devil is all in the detail though.

The danger lies in the detail being skewed to fit a POV that we are expected to agree with without question. Opponents like the HS2 Action Alliance argue that the scheme is based on a fundamentally flawed business case, that the environmental impact is being massively underplayed and that essentially, rather than redistribute wealth and expertise it will act as a funnel to draw it all down the the South - surely the last thing that we need?

We are not years behind other countries on high speed rail, in fact we already have one of the best rail networks in Europe. What we don't have is a super high speed like that which is planned for China - because surely we don't NEED to travel at these speeds through a country that is less than 900 miles long?

I thought that borrowing money in order to create jobs, straight-forward Keynesianism, was a popular idea amongst most who aren't John Redwood? This is what was done in the 1930s: the Loan Guarantee Scheme (government subsidy in all but name) paid for the Piccadilly Line north of Finsbury Park, the upgrades to the Piccadilly Line west of Hammersmith, the Northern Line north of Highgate, the Central Line improvements, (although most of that wasn't completed until after the war), the rebuilding and widening of the locks on the Grand Union south of Lapworth and loads of other stuff. If you pay people to do work, even if it's not economic, it's not much more expensive that paying them not to do work, and you get the infrastructure at the end.

I too think it will act like a funnel to bring people down South - it will basically make a lot more places 'commutable'.

It is essential in the long-term. This recession wont last forever. The biggest problem in the UK economy isn't the deficit but over-centralisation in the SE. Most other countries aren't like this.

It needs to go up to Scotland too.

Investment in infrastructure is vital for the countrys economic future.

The problem is with the detail. In principle High Speed Rail is a good idea, but once you look more closely you discover that ultra high speed trains are not green and the business case is built on unrealistic assumptions. Such as that all time on trains is currently wasted (ie no-one works on trains; that rail travel will increase by 267% despite evidence of travel saturation, and that future technology will not discourage travel.

£34 billion of taxpayers money is too much to spend on an all or nothing gamble. Rail experts have produced alternatives for the Department for Transport that would cause far less destruction, for far less cost, whilst still producing the required increase in capacity and connectivity.

Even if the deficit is under control by 2015, the national debt and the interest payments on that debt will still be massive.

Thanks @BCCubitt very well put. That's exactly how I see it. It's easy to get caught up in the argument that all investment in infrastructure is good without questioning the motives or the statements being made.

The case for HS2 plainly is not sound, but the goalposts have been moved so many times already that people are not seeing the clear picture.

Seems a lot of investment for not very much in the way of results. Yes, it'll keep a few people in jobs, but £34 billion would do that however it was spent. Personally, I like the countryside and I love fresh air, and am worried at how much of this we're losing through these massive infrastructure investments.

I appreciate we're driving more & more and expecting to be able to travel further and easier than we ever have before and have to plan now for the next 20-30 years rather than panic when it's too late. But could we please save a few fields and trees for my old age.