Robbie is using too many statistics which are set in the future and thus cannot be proved to be credible. Such crystal ball gazing almost always turns out to be wrong. She is almost certainly wrong too when she claims that HS2 will encourage people to travel to Northern Hubs, as other high speed lines around the world have had the opposite effect, with them making it easier to travel to the capital to take up jobs there, rather than the other way around. She also presents HS2 as the only way to increase capacity, yet the nearby Chiltern line is presently operating well below its potential capacity and could take several more trains per hour with little difficulty. Lastly, she talks of "sustainable construction jobs". It is the nature of construction work that jobs are created for the duration of a project and then lost again at the end of it. The only way construction jobs can be sustainable is for there to be never ending series of building projects to keep people in work. This is rarely the case, and most construction workers you will meet will tell you they often go through periods of hardship waiting for new building projects to appear and will laugh at the idea of a sustained construction job.
Adrian - 7 years ago
I disagree with Ben and think Robbie's facts are well checked. Actually, I really admire a succinct argument and he put forward a really good and concise case that is full of figures easily sourced.
Ben - 7 years ago
Robbie needs to do some serious fact checking.
Not even HS2 claim a BCR of 6 (or even half that).
The reality is we'll get less money out than we put in with this absurd project.
And aside from the vast upfront expense, it will cost more to run than it benefits the economy.
The energy costs alone once it is up and running are staggering - 18 trains per hour will draw mire electricity than is required to power a million homes.
Robbie is using too many statistics which are set in the future and thus cannot be proved to be credible. Such crystal ball gazing almost always turns out to be wrong. She is almost certainly wrong too when she claims that HS2 will encourage people to travel to Northern Hubs, as other high speed lines around the world have had the opposite effect, with them making it easier to travel to the capital to take up jobs there, rather than the other way around. She also presents HS2 as the only way to increase capacity, yet the nearby Chiltern line is presently operating well below its potential capacity and could take several more trains per hour with little difficulty. Lastly, she talks of "sustainable construction jobs". It is the nature of construction work that jobs are created for the duration of a project and then lost again at the end of it. The only way construction jobs can be sustainable is for there to be never ending series of building projects to keep people in work. This is rarely the case, and most construction workers you will meet will tell you they often go through periods of hardship waiting for new building projects to appear and will laugh at the idea of a sustained construction job.
I disagree with Ben and think Robbie's facts are well checked. Actually, I really admire a succinct argument and he put forward a really good and concise case that is full of figures easily sourced.
Robbie needs to do some serious fact checking.
Not even HS2 claim a BCR of 6 (or even half that).
The reality is we'll get less money out than we put in with this absurd project.
And aside from the vast upfront expense, it will cost more to run than it benefits the economy.
The energy costs alone once it is up and running are staggering - 18 trains per hour will draw mire electricity than is required to power a million homes.
http://www.voxopp.org.uk/449/where-will-the-electricity-come-from/