New Hs2 blog

[Snapper]

As the North of England & parts of Wales count the costs of the Boxing day floods the anti Hs2 mobs cynicism levels are full to overflowing. Desperate for any opportunity to try & revive their dying campaign they’re cynically exploiting the floods to call for Hs2 money to be diverted to flood defences

More here;

https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/the-anti-hs2-mobs-crocodile-tears-over-flooding/

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Where do you suggest extra flood defense money should come from?
Or don't you think it isn't worth the effort? Parts of York were flooded as the floodgates got water in the mechanism, so an upgrade is needed to prevent the next one surely? Hull was flooded in 2007 as the pumping stations weren't working. Drains aren't cleared, and new defenses are often not sufficient due to the fact that there's limited money for flood prevention and alot of houses on floodplains.

HS2 is a c.£50bn project, taking that money away from Health, Defense, Home Office, Welfare, Transport, Silly Walks, Foreign Office, or any other department would be very difficult, HS2 is a controversal and expensive project and an easier target then anything else, isn't it?

That Aire Valley bit isn't certain at all, Leeds New Lane station plan was dropped (good call) so maybe it will be routed further west now??

 

[Haydn1971]

Where do you suggest extra flood defense money should come from? Or don't you think it isn't worth the effort? Parts of York were flooded as the floodgates got water in the mechanism, so an upgrade is needed to prevent the next one surely? Hull was flooded in 2007 as the pumping stations weren't working. Drains aren't cleared, and new defenses are often not sufficient due to the fact that there's limited money for flood prevention and alot of houses on floodplains.

There is only so much you can do, the key is protecting human life, which I'd say is done pretty well - property is replaceable, human life is not. There are 100,000's of homes built historically in flood risk areas, the cost of relocating these would be unsustainable, so we compromise and live with the fact that 5% of the population suffers a flood incident once in their life, 2% suffer several and a small % suffer nearly every other year.

HS2 is a c.£50bn project, taking that money away from Health, Defense, Home Office, Welfare, Transport, Silly Walks, Foreign Office, or any other department would be very difficult, HS2 is a controversal and expensive project and an easier target then anything else, isn't it?

No it's not, HS2 is an investment, the £50Bn is an educated gamble with guaranteed odds of getting the £50Bn back through economic growth, increased taxation income and external investment from the private sector and overseas - the only question is how much more return on the investment will come back, twice, three times, or more... Much of the rest is ongoing costs, which need to be reduced, HS2 will reduce the cost of running current Victorian era classic rail infrastructure.

 

[nidave]

Where do you suggest extra flood defense money should come from?
Or don't you think it isn't worth the effort? Parts of York were flooded as the floodgates got water in the mechanism, so an upgrade is needed to prevent the next one surely? Hull was flooded in 2007 as the pumping stations weren't working. Drains aren't cleared, and new defenses are often not sufficient due to the fact that there's limited money for flood prevention and alot of houses on floodplains.

HS2 is a c.£50bn project, taking that money away from Health, Defense, Home Office, Welfare, Transport, Silly Walks, Foreign Office, or any other department would be very difficult, HS2 is a controversal and expensive project and an easier target then anything else, isn't it?

That Aire Valley bit isn't certain at all, Leeds New Lane station plan was dropped (good call) so maybe it will be routed further west now??

Can you tell me how the money is being taken away from other departments? It was borrowed for this one purpose - if we were to scrap HS2 there would not be £50bn sitting in the government's bank account.

Would the recent spending review by the current government which has decimated many government departments have been any different ? I really doubt it. There is the money to spend on securing proper flood defences and to change the way we as a country look at flooding and how we deal with it and mitigate against it, but the current chancellor is not interested. HS2 or not that would not change.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I never said HS2 took money away from departments. I was pointing out it'll be easier to justify taking it's budget than a department's.

I know it's an investment, one with a low cost to benefit ratio for a railway. But surely flood defenses also have an impact by reducing insurance costs etc.
I'm not a fan of HS2, but even those who do like it must know it's an easy target to suggest a raiding of it's budget. And that's what I was saying.
Personally I think line re-openings suggested on the ATOC report would be better value as the report showed. Also it's a bad investment for many, the HS2 company tried to hide the figures which said Wales, South West, Leicester, etc would have economic woes from HS2, but I guess it's okay to pro-HS2 people if more money is made elsewhere? What bad effect will flood prevention have to other areas?

And what's this about Victorian railways becoming cheaper thanks to HS2 about?

 

[nidave]

I know it's an investment, one with a low cost to benefit ratio for a railway. But surely flood defenses also have an impact by reducing insurance costs etc.
I'm not a fan of HS2, but even those who do like it must know it's an easy target to suggest a raiding of it's budget.

The money is there for one specific purpose HS2 - if you don't spend it on HS2 there is not money floating about waiting to be used for other things. Despite what the government want you to think government finances don't work like household finances.

You borrow for a specific purpose if you don't spend it on that purpose the money disappears (for want of a better word). You would have to secure funding for the other item separately.

 

[Haydn1971]

I never said HS2 took money away from departments. I was pointing out it'll be easier to justify taking it's budget than a department's.

Here....

HS2 is a c.£50bn project, taking that money away from Health, Defense, Home Office, Welfare, Transport, Silly Walks, Foreign Office, or any other department would be very difficult, HS2 is a controversal and expensive project and an easier target then anything else, isn't it?

-----------------------

I know it's an investment, one with a low cost to benefit ratio for a railway. But surely flood defenses also have an impact by reducing insurance costs etc.

It's a project like no other, the low CBR is inevitable with the flow forecasting methodologies that we have. We already spend hundreds of millions of flood defences, increasing that spend will yield a diminishing return. Ultimately sea levels are rising, surface water issues have increased due to poor moorland management, compounded by increasing use of non-porous surfacing to store our cars on at night. People continue to buy homes in areas known to flood, personally, I've no sympathy for them, I've much more sympathy with people who's homes have been brought into flood risk areas by more recent flood risk reviews.

I'm not a fan of HS2, but even those who do like it must know it's an easy target to suggest a raiding of it's budget. And that's what I was saying.

So you are saying it's taking money away from other budgets and don't understand what an investment is ?

Personally I think line re-openings suggested on the ATOC report would be better value as the report showed. Also it's a bad investment for many, the HS2 company tried to hide the figures which said Wales, South West, Leicester, etc would have economic woes from HS2, but I guess it's okay to pro-HS2 people if more money is made elsewhere? What bad effect will flood prevention have to other areas?

West Coast Mainline and more recently the difficulties with Great Western have demonstrated how difficult works next to live railways are - HS2 has impacts on the existing network, but is significantly easier to build offline than sticking a second pair of tracks next to existing mainlines, HS2 is about creating capacity, the speed is a fringe benefit, the capacity comes from removing conflicts of different train speeds, massively interlaced networks that need padding to ensure they work efficiently and by having trains that carry three times as many people than current big (UK) trains.

And what's this about Victorian railways becoming cheaper thanks to HS2 about?

Fast express trains are heavy and cause substantial strain on structures and track beds, removing the core services from creaking Victorian based lines allows for more economical repairs to be made, closures over full weekends rather than over a Saturday night is much more economical to do.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

What's that "Here" comment about??
If you can't read my comment it's not my fault. I suggest you re-read it.
I said HS2 costs alot of money, and that taking that about of money from any department would be difficult. Which it would be.

Also I didn't say it's taking money away from other things, I said it's an easy target to suggest that HS2s funding be put to other causes.

I'm okay with everything else you said except that flood comment about not having sympathy for flood victims in areas flooded before they brought their house.
Look at Dumfries for example, it flooded 4 times in 6 years, do you want locals to abandon the town? It's alright if your house hasn't flooded, but some people don't have the choice of buying anything but the cheapest house, which may be in flood risk, but surely a natural disaster isn't the resident's fault, or are you saying it is??? Do you have sympathy for people living in Earthquake areas for example under similar situations?
A flood is terrible and unless flood risk houses are all demolished, or flood defenses improved, many will be flooded again.

 

[Haydn1971]

It's alright if your house hasn't flooded, but some people don't have the choice of buying anything but the cheapest house, which may be in flood risk, but surely a natural disaster isn't the resident's fault, or are you saying it is???

So you want to take advantage of the cheaper house and get government to pay you for your stupid mistake of buying a house at risk from flooding ? Talk about having your cake and eating it.

Do you have sympathy for people living in Earthquake areas for example under similar situations?

That's a straw man argument - earthquakes are rather indiscriminate and to the best of my knowledge not really a major issue in the UK

A flood is terrible and unless flood risk houses are all demolished, or flood defenses improved, many will be flooded again.

That's the point, there's 100,000's of homes in flood risk areas, someone has to foot the bill for what you think should be done, yet many of these homes are occupied by people who knowingly bought a home in a flood risk area. Why should the tax payer help these people ahead of people that have had their homes added to flood risk areas after they bought or moved into their home - these people didn't take a risk in buying or renting in a flood risk area, but have subsequently being affected.

There is an enormous amount of money spent already on flood defences, these defences focus on protecting life and also places of high economic impact - you'd spend money to protect a power station, but not to protect 50 homes. You can't solve everyone's problems, but you can ensure that essential service is maintained.

 

[nidave]

I'm okay with everything else you said except that flood comment about not having sympathy for flood victims in areas flooded before they brought their house.
.

I don't agree with that comment as well, there are some major changes in the environment going on which needs to be looked at, there are also other things that can be done further upstream to protect areas, some will cost a lot of money, others will require a change in the way we manage land.

We are going to have to pay for this as a country, however I don't think its an either or situation (flood defences or HS2) - we can do both and should be doing both, its just there is not the will to do it. Attitudes will change and it will end up costing a lot more overall if we wait.