HS2

[Northmoor]

Don't underestimate the cost of land in the UK, it is some of the most expensive anywhere in the world (especially SE England where, because it has the highest population density, costs dis-proportionally more to build in).

Then consider that everyone wants their cut; people who don't even like where they live, but can't sell their house because they haven't maintained it properly and it needs £30K of work, suddenly expect the previous, not planning-blighted, full market price for a property that's about to be demolished. 

Planning gain is also a huge aspect of building in the UK.  A local developer wanting to build 6 houses will find they have to contribute to a new fence to the school up the road - or something else you thought your Council Tax paid for - and so on.

I do agree that a lot of railway projects have become ridiculously expensive; the cost of a single, 4-coach platform seems to be in real terms, about five times as expensive as in the 1980s.  The increase in specification has certainly had an impact, and every single issue pressure group has through legislation they campaigned for, imposed small changes on projects that individually cost very little, but all add cost that the pressure group don't have to pay (expect through their taxes).

Beware of boiling frogs......

[lmsforever]

6 hours ago, caradoc said:

They are very inscrutable those men from Peking

It would be very interesting to know how the Chinese proposed to achieve this, while at the same time complying with all relevant UK laws and regulations, and also dealing with anti-HS2 protestors.....

 

 

[Christopher125]

7 hours ago, DK123GWR said:

Perhaps a more understandable misconception for those who don't follow current affairs closely, given that there was an offer from the Chinese to build it in a much shorter timescale than planned which drew a lot of media attention. I don't recall the decision to reject this offer being so well publicised.

 

It wasn't actually real! Just a bizarre error-ridden hoax...

 

Chinese HS2 letter was ‘fake news’

 

"Speaking at Chatham House in London, ambassador Liu Xiaoming said: ‘The Chinese railway authority did not write a letter to promise it can deliver the HS2 project within five years’. He also used the phrase ‘fake news’.

 

The letter included an email address which did not have an official domain name connected with the railway in China and quoted the postal address of a ‘representative office’ in Malaysia. In reality, the railway’s head office is in Beijing. The letter was signed by someone who also does not seem to exist.

 

According to City A.M., the China Railway 16th Bureau Group has since denied that it wrote to HS2. It is quoted as saying: ‘Our company knew nothing about the letter which appeared recently in certain media and was written in our company’s name to the chief executive officer HS2 before our company read the letter in the media.’"

Edited December 5, 2020 by Christopher125

[DK123GWR]

1 hour ago, Christopher125 said:

 

It wasn't actually real! Just a bizarre error-ridden hoax...

 

Chinese HS2 letter was ‘fake news’

 

"Speaking at Chatham House in London, ambassador Liu Xiaoming said: ‘The Chinese railway authority did not write a letter to promise it can deliver the HS2 project within five years’. He also used the phrase ‘fake news’.

 

The letter included an email address which did not have an official domain name connected with the railway in China and quoted the postal address of a ‘representative office’ in Malaysia. In reality, the railway’s head office is in Beijing. The letter was signed by someone who also does not seem to exist.

 

According to City A.M., the China Railway 16th Bureau Group has since denied that it wrote to HS2. It is quoted as saying: ‘Our company knew nothing about the letter which appeared recently in certain media and was written in our company’s name to the chief executive officer HS2 before our company read the letter in the media.’"

And there we go. I've either forgotten or missed that it was fake (as well as everybody else reading the forum in the eight hours between our posts). Who knows what people who don't make a habit of following political or rail news might think happened? I don't know about older generations, but politically disinterested people of my age tend to get their news through social media, which rarely gives the full story even when it is accurate. Hopefully, this illustrates why there is likely to be so much misinformation circulating about the project (as well as many other issues) even without any malicious behaviour.

[D826]

16 hours ago, Northmoor said:

  A local developer wanting to build 6 houses will find they have to contribute to a new fence to the school up the road - or something else you thought your Council Tax paid for - and so on.

 

Well they need some good advice then !

 

Planning gain wont pay for anything unconnected with the impact of the development- not if it wants to stand up to scrutiny and potential legal challenge anyway.  A planning contribution needs to  pass the tests necessary for genuinely required planning obligations.  It could reasonably be expected to mitigate the cost associated with the demand for additional primary and secondary school pupil places, and potentially the need for additional classrooms and depending on scale, even schools - and other public service requirements, arising from the impacts of the development.  Your Council tax does not pay for that. 

 

This is the major issue with so many of the reforms that enable change of use of often unsuitable offices to residential units without needing planning permission - no associated planning obligations and therefore additional pressure for services. 

 

Anyway, the Planning White Paper consultation earlier this year promises further significant reform, including potentially an Infrastructure Levy, sweeping away section 106 Agreements, and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to history.  There are also references to Land Value capture which have aroused considerable interest in various quarters.  

 

 

Quite how infrastructure tariff squares with consultation launched last week on further extension of permitted development rights to Class E business and commercial uses in the amended UseClasses Order I do not know.  No planning contributions, further market distortion through residential values being the benchmark against which all free holders consider property management, and the pace of change in our high streets, towns and villages will simply accelerate. Lots of contradictions in consultation at the moment.

 

Exciting times... (i think that's the word - you have to try to stay upbeat) in UK plc....I think.

 

Best regards

 

Matt

[caradoc]

22 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Somehow, here in Britain, we seem to manage to overpay for infrastructure projects.

 

19 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Inflated costs are a feature of any construction in the UK

 

Not something that is unique to the UK ! Berlin Brandenburg Airport is a particularly extreme example, having just opened 9 (nine) years late, at a grossly inflated cost. 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by caradoc
Spelling mistake

[corneliuslundie]

"Exciting times"

A variation of the Chinese proverb?

As far as I can see the other problem with the proposed changes to planning law is that they will do nothing  whatsoever to achieve more affordable housing which is one of the claimed main aims of the changes, quite the opposite - they will encourage speculative builders to build whatever they can make the biggest profit on, which is not affordable housing.

And neither I am afraid will HS2, which is also likely to increase property prices in some areas within easy reach of its stations. But that is a small downside compared with the benefits it should bring.

Jonathan

[phil-b259]

28 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

 

Not something that is unique to the UK ! Berlin Brandenburg Airport is a particularly extreme example, having just opened 9 (nine) years late, at a grossly inflated cost. 

 

 

Indeed - BUT ultimately that delay is largely due to letting architects run wild with untested concepts in a effort to make the thing a showcase project.

 

For example as any person with a modicum of sense will tell you, hot gases rise upwards and thus a smoke extraction system works best when suspended from the ceiling. Unfortunately this doesn't look nice and prevents things like swanky glass roofs etc so the architects wanted a system that sucked smoke downwards into under floor ducting to get rid of it! At the time the airport was being designed no such system actually existed - particularly one that cope with the large open spaces the architects wanted to provide and its not that surprising that chaos reigned when initial attempts to make up lost time meant that installation of the equipment was rushed and it didn't work / presented a safety hazard.

 

Had the airport been less ambitious and gone for boring conventional buildings then it would have been open for a good few years by now.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Jumping back to the Grim's Ditch issue.

Here's an aerial view from a couple of years ago, showing where HS2 will cut across the top end of the woods (the red line).

 

[wagonman]

Fake News. The Chinese did not offer to build HS2. We will just have to carry on watching the army of consultants and general hangers-on gold plating every specification as usual.

 

 

[Zomboid]

8 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Indeed - BUT ultimately that delay is largely due to letting architects run wild with untested concepts in a effort to make the thing a showcase project.

 

For example as any person with a modicum of sense will tell you, hot gases rise upwards and thus a smoke extraction system works best when suspended from the ceiling. Unfortunately this doesn't look nice and prevents things like swanky glass roofs etc so the architects wanted a system that sucked smoke downwards into under floor ducting to get rid of it! At the time the airport was being designed no such system actually existed - particularly one that cope with the large open spaces the architects wanted to provide and its not that surprising that chaos reigned when initial attempts to make up lost time meant that installation of the equipment was rushed and it didn't work / presented a safety hazard.

 

Had the airport been less ambitious and gone for boring conventional buildings then it would have been open for a good few years by now.

True, if they'd tried to build something different then the result would have been different.

 

But they did what they did and it was massively over budget and nearly a decade late.

[ess1uk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55207108
news report 

[Mark Saunders]

1 hour ago, ess1uk said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55207108
news report 

I expect Boudicca and the Iceni were against the new straight roads the Romans were building and the strange rectangular house design that would never catch on!

[melmerby]

14 hours ago, ess1uk said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55207108
news report 

In the report:

"Climate change and reducing carbon is a priority. Removing ancient trees, even with mitigation, does not fit easily with that objective."

Quite the opposite, new trees absorb more CO2 than "ancient trees"

[billbedford]

25 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Quite the opposite, new trees absorb more CO2 than "ancient trees"

 

What is the basis of that statement?

[Bernard Lamb]

15 hours ago, ess1uk said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55207108
news report 

Very interesting. There was a very different view point expressed on the lunch time south east news about the line being essential to free up space on the existing lines. It looks as though the message is getting through in some quarters. On a later programme a representative from HS2 was also given a slot to put his point across.

Bernard 

[Edwin_m]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

What is the basis of that statement?

Young trees are still growing so need CO2 to produce the organic compounds that make up wood.  Older trees aren't growing, and although they need CO2 to produce leaves this may just get returned to the atmosphere depending what happens to the leaves after they fall off the tree.  

[caradoc]

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

Quite the opposite, new trees absorb more CO2 than "ancient trees"

 

And, while some tree species can be long lived, none lasts forever, so every ancient tree will eventually die and (hopefully) be replaced by a new one. HS2 is simply speeding up the process !

 

[billbedford]

53 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Young trees are still growing so need CO2 to produce the organic compounds that make up wood.  Older trees aren't growing, and although they need CO2 to produce leaves this may just get returned to the atmosphere depending what happens to the leaves after they fall off the tree.  

 

Wrong on two counts:

• The CO2 absorbed by plants is proportional to their leaf area. 
• Trees don't 'stop growing'. While their height might be limited by their vascular system, soil and competition, they continuously add new cells to the cambium and so the girth of both trunks and branches continues to increase. 

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

Wrong on two counts:

• The CO2 absorbed by plants is proportional to their leaf area. 
• Trees don't 'stop growing'. While their height might be limited by their vascular system, soil and competition, they continuously add new cells to the cambium and so the girth of both trunks and branches continues to increase. 

 

Not actually true, necessarily, Bill.

 

The attached confirms yet another study which suggests that, in the main, young trees are 25% more effective overall, at storing carbon, than their older brethren. But there are many exceptions and I guess the jury is still out.

 

https://www.ecowatch.com/plant-more-trees-2630287322.html#toggle-gdpr

 

 

[Mike Storey]

The actual answer to the various issues raised above, about new or established trees and carbon capture, is that none of that will actually make anywhere near as big a difference as reducing CO2 (and other) emissions overall.

 

So the real argument for HS2 is not about trees, but about reducing travel undertaken by carbon polluters, particularly the car and lorry, but also aircraft. So speed is vital to encourage the modal transfer, alongside door-to-door journey times and convenience. Whilst journey cost is an issue for many, it is not critical for a sufficient number, and substantial climate gain can be won from that sector.

 

Of course, if electric cars and trucks become a reality within the HS2 timeframe, then the argument revolves around the environmental costs of producing those vehicles, not purely running them. For road to win that argument, it would require a wholesale change from car ownership in favour of an "Uber-style" service for long/medium distance journeys, or a massive reduction in cost of the vehicle.  That is where journey time becomes even more important. I cannot see the same people who value convenience of their own car, despite the lengthy journey times, being a future market. It is those for whom journey time is important, and ease and convenience of regular commuter trains on the routes released by HS2 capacity, that will prove the basis of demand.

[lmsforever]

An excellent piece on the tunnell machines which arrived at Denham interview with chap who is in .charge of putting them together.But a stupid piece about anti,s near Denham how wonderful they are was the theme .Even swampy is up a tree there others are hysterical idiots.Going to be good when tunnells start.

[Edwin_m]

50 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

Of course, if electric cars and trucks become a reality within the HS2 timeframe, then the argument revolves around the environmental costs of producing those vehicles, not purely running them. 

Electric vehicles will still produce tyre particulates, which appear to be a significant fraction of total pollution.  In fact, being heavier than the equivalent IC vehicles, they may produce more.  

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Not actually true, necessarily, Bill.

 

The attached confirms yet another study which suggests that, in the main, young trees are 25% more effective overall, at storing carbon, than their older brethren. But there are many exceptions and I guess the jury is still out.

 

https://www.ecowatch.com/plant-more-trees-2630287322.html#toggle-gdpr

 

 

 

Actually the original paper compared old and new growth forests, rather than individual trees. 

 

Quote

We define old-growth forest as any forest stand more than 140-y-old relative to our 2010 baseline. This definition represents a compromise between the 60–100 y reported for biomass recovery in individual forest stands, and the timescales of 140–400 y reported for recovery of pollen counts following large disturbance , indicative of the successional process. Succession is important because late successional trees typically live longer, reducing ecosystem-level carbon turnover rates.

 

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, lmsforever said:

An excellent piece on the tunnell machines which arrived at Denham interview with chap who is in .charge of putting them together.But a stupid piece about anti,s near Denham how wonderful they are was the theme .Even swampy is up a tree there others are hysterical idiots.Going to be good when tunnells start.

Is there a link to the piece please.

 

Jamie

Edited December 8, 2020 by jamie92208