Live blog: The Friday Leave/Remain poll, Scrapped HS2 cycleway would have provided five times the return on investment as the rail line; Deceuninck-QuickStep genitals training + more

Organon wrote:

Leave/Remain; isn't there a third way? Just coast by seeing if they look productively engaged in a repair, and if not call out 'Y'alright?'

Seems sensible, so I doubt parliament will vote for it...

Organon wrote:

Leave/Remain; isn't there a third way? Just coast by seeing if they look productively engaged in a repair, and if not call out 'Y'alright?'

I normally try to Leave, but just end up cutting my own throat and bleeding to death.

burtthebike wrote:

So which ones get funded?

The ones that allow wealthy people who bought a slightly cheaper house out in the country so they could afford to buy another house somewhere sunny to commute to their Very Important office job in a hedge fund or bank in the City.

(Sorry, I might be generalising a bit there and being unfair to someone in pinstripes  ).

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So which ones get funded?

The ones that allow wealthy people who bought a slightly cheaper house out in the country so they could afford to buy another house somewhere sunny to commute to their Very Important office job in a hedge fund or bank in the City.

(Sorry, I might be generalising a bit there and being unfair to someone in pinstripes  ).

Yes, because everyone who uses the WCML is wealthy, has a hedge fune, or works in the city, don't they.............

Bungle73 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So which ones get funded?

The ones that allow wealthy people who bought a slightly cheaper house out in the country so they could afford to buy another house somewhere sunny to commute to their Very Important office job in a hedge fund or bank in the City.

(Sorry, I might be generalising a bit there and being unfair to someone in pinstripes  ).

Yes, because everyone who uses the WCML is wealthy, has a hedge fune, or works in the city, don't they.............

We're talking about hs2, though. Pay way more money to get to London five minutes faster... I don't know about the west coast main line, but hs2 damn well  *is* aimed at wealthy businesspersons.

brooksby wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So which ones get funded?

The ones that allow wealthy people who bought a slightly cheaper house out in the country so they could afford to buy another house somewhere sunny to commute to their Very Important office job in a hedge fund or bank in the City.

(Sorry, I might be generalising a bit there and being unfair to someone in pinstripes  ).

Yes, because everyone who uses the WCML is wealthy, has a hedge fune, or works in the city, don't they.............

We're talking about hs2, though. Pay way more money to get to London five minutes faster... I don't know about the west coast main line, but hs2 damn well  *is* aimed at wealthy businesspersons.

The purpose of HS2 is to releive pressure from the WCML, which has severe capcity problems. Like most people, you crictise the building of HS2 without even  knowimg why it is being built.

Bungle73 wrote:

The purpose of HS2 is to releive pressure from the WCML, which has severe capcity problems. Like most people, you crictise the building of HS2 without even  knowimg why it is being built.

The only valid reason I've heard for building HS2 is to provide the tories donors with lots of profit.  If it was a decision based on value for money, it wouldn't be happening, but a proper national, regional and local cycle network would.  The decision to build it was clearly not based on economics, or wider benefits.

burtthebike wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

The purpose of HS2 is to releive pressure from the WCML, which has severe capcity problems. Like most people, you crictise the building of HS2 without even  knowimg why it is being built.

The only valid reason I've heard for building HS2 is to provide the tories donors with lots of profit.  If it was a decision based on value for money, it wouldn't be happening, but a proper national, regional and local cycle network would.  The decision to build it was clearly not based on economics, or wider benefits.

You have a very short memory. HS2 was the brainchild of the last Labour government. The Tories mistake was not scrapping it.

fizrar6 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

The purpose of HS2 is to releive pressure from the WCML, which has severe capcity problems. Like most people, you crictise the building of HS2 without even  knowimg why it is being built.

The only valid reason I've heard for building HS2 is to provide the tories donors with lots of profit.  If it was a decision based on value for money, it wouldn't be happening, but a proper national, regional and local cycle network would.  The decision to build it was clearly not based on economics, or wider benefits.

You have a very short memory. HS2 was the brainchild of the last Labour government. The Tories mistake was not scrapping it.

My memory is fine, and the last labour government wasn't labour; it was tory with a pink rinse.

Bungle73 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So which ones get funded?

The ones that allow wealthy people who bought a slightly cheaper house out in the country so they could afford to buy another house somewhere sunny to commute to their Very Important office job in a hedge fund or bank in the City.

(Sorry, I might be generalising a bit there and being unfair to someone in pinstripes  ).

Yes, because everyone who uses the WCML is wealthy, has a hedge fune, or works in the city, don't they.............

We're talking about hs2, though. Pay way more money to get to London five minutes faster... I don't know about the west coast main line, but hs2 damn well  *is* aimed at wealthy businesspersons.

The purpose of HS2 is to releive pressure from the WCML, which has severe capcity problems. Like most people, you crictise the building of HS2 without even  knowimg why it is being built.

That would be "relieve pressure" by moving the people in the first class carriages onto a dedicated super speed permanently first class rail line? How does that disprove my point??

burtthebike wrote:

The HS2 figures for return on investment, of 1:1.5, only stand up if you make some very questionable assumptions about the benefits e.g. that time on a train is non-productive, which is clearly not true.  All the independent analyses of HS2 say it is not an economic proposition.

On the contrary, the benefits of providing for cyclists are solid and unquestionable, and even with the skewed system, are vastly better value than major road and rail schemes.

So which ones get funded?

Answers on a postcard to your local MP.

the problem is building a cycling scheme would not occupy the many thousands of construction workers/builders/architects etc for the best part of a decade at a time, these big infrastructure projects like HS2 or CrossRail, are as much about providing reasonably medium term employment prospects for lots and lots of people, and all the subsidiary support business around it. Thats where the real ROI comes from in terms of the governments spend on them, these people get paid a wage they can live on, they pay tax, they spend money back in the economy, it all creates economic growth.

That these things when constructed eventually are ultimately often marginal in terms of actual cost benefit,well youll have had a decade of near guaranteed growth in the construction industry by then, who will have then moved on to the next big government funded mega building project and the whole merry go round starts again.

Awavey wrote:

the problem is building a cycling scheme would not occupy the many thousands of construction workers/builders/architects etc for the best part of a decade at a time, these big infrastructure projects like HS2 or CrossRail, are as much about providing reasonably medium term employment prospects for lots and lots of people, and all the subsidiary support business around it. Thats where the real ROI comes from in terms of the governments spend on them, these people get paid a wage they can live on, they pay tax, they spend money back in the economy, it all creates economic growth.

That these things when constructed eventually are ultimately often marginal in terms of actual cost benefit,well youll have had a decade of near guaranteed growth in the construction industry by then, who will have then moved on to the next big government funded mega building project and the whole merry go round starts again.

You are undoubtedly right, but a national cycle network, with regional and local segments, would provide more employment for longer and be vastly more beneficial in all areas, including financial.

So why isn't that funded?  I think the answer is that HS2 and other mega-projects are ego schemes for the politicians, who love to be able to point at something and claim the credit e.g. channel tunnel.  Transport is one of the few areas where politicians can have a fairly direct effect, unlike most other areas of public policy.  Although cycling is a vote winner according to all the polls, it's still a bit too tree-hugging leftie for most politicians, and rail and road have powerful and vocal supporters.