Will this be as bad as HS2?

[George and Dragon]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/22/project-britain-debate-oxford-cambridge-expressway

 

Or might it even bring benefits for the waterways?

[Heartland]

There have certainly been issues with the route of HS2 and organisations such have the IWA have been in regular discussions over the impact, poor planning etc. but this proposed expressway harks back to the murky days of Ernest Maples when the road lobby in Parliament changed the face of British roads with the creation of the motorway network. Both canals and railways suffered. 

 

This new proposal for a pollution ridden highway between the two great University towns, appears to ignore the intentions of improving the railway links between these two seats of learning, thinking and innovation.

 

[Machpoint005]

The last time I drove into Bedford there were road signs proudly proclaiming that it was the midpoint on the Oxford/Cambridge arc. That's the only case I've seen of a place's claim to fame being that it is halfway between two far more famous places.

[Mike55]

Depends on whether you think HS2 is bad or not...

[Jen-in-Wellies]

44 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

The last time I drove into Bedford there were road signs proudly proclaiming that it was the midpoint on the Oxford/Cambridge arc. That's the only case I've seen of a place's claim to fame being that it is halfway between two far more famous places.

It is Bedford though. Got to make use of anything they can find. Similar to places whose one claim to fame is to be the birthplace of someone well known, who left as soon as they possibly could to do whatever they did somewhere more interesting!

 

Jen

[furnessvale]

24 minutes ago, Mike55 said:

Depends on whether you think HS2 is bad or not...

How true.  People who believe stopping HS2 will not mean extra road capacity to replace it are seriously deluded!

 

George

[Machpoint005]

1 hour ago, furnessvale said:

How true.  People who believe stopping HS2 will not mean extra road capacity to replace it are seriously deluded!

 

George

I'm sure you didn't intend it as a direct substitution, but the last time I looked HS2 goes roughly N-S whereas Oxford-Cambridge is W-E.

[KevMc]

2 hours ago, Mike55 said:

Depends on whether you think HS2 is bad or not...

Of course it is bad

[Machpoint005]

Just now, KevMc said:

Of course it is bad

You're confusing it with HS2 -- smells like bad eggs.

[David Schweizer]

I have not studied the proposals in any great detail but from what I have read, the "Oxford-Cambridge Expressway" appears to be an upgrading of existing roads with new bypasses where appropriate, rather than a completely new Route.  Rather like the A303 which was widened and straightened some years ago, with new town bypasses.

[Athy]

3 hours ago, Heartland said:

 Ernest Maples

I remember him. He was Minister of Transport and had a furniture shop in Tottenham Court Road.

[Stilllearning]

8 minutes ago, Athy said:

I remember him. He was Minister of Transport and had a furniture shop in Tottenham Court Road.

Virtual green thing, sir.

[Neil2]

3 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

The last time I drove into Bedford there were road signs proudly proclaiming that it was the midpoint on the Oxford/Cambridge arc. That's the only case I've seen of a place's claim to fame being that it is halfway between two far more famous places.

Despite the parodies featured on Twitter the actual slogans of many towns/counties are much funnier.

 

My sister used to live in Southport which is the dullest place on earth and full of retired folk yet has the tag line "Day time, Night time, Great time." 

 

Peterborough - "A city to surprise and delight you" especially if you like cheap heroin

 

Rutland "Discover 100% of real England right here in Rutland"  (it won't take long)

 

Lincolshire "Big County, Big skies, Big future" oh yes? without those EU subsidies

 

Clackmannanshire "the Wee County"  stop sniggering at the back there

 

Apologies to anyone from these localities I'm originally from Rotherham so as we used to say I've got nowt to come.

[KevMc]

20 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

You're confusing it with HS2 -- smells like bad eggs.

The reason we "need" HS2 is because the commuter lines don't have the capacity for people going to work and freight. Now if we reduced the number of people using the train for work we'd have enough capacity for freight without HS2. The reason we have so many people commuting is because we are stuck in a 19th century mindset where people carrying out office work have to attend an office, so they can work on a screen at a desk, when in fact the vast majority of the work done in offices around cities can be done either at home or in e-hubs in the neighbourhood.

 

Take away all the commuters that could work locally, and you wouldn't need the armies of ancillary workers that exist merely to service office space in the city, so you would end up with a very very small number of people who really had to be in offices in cities (though I'm not sure who they would be)  ... and by releasing all the office space in the city centres property prices would fall so those who needed to work there could also afford to live there, we'd end up needing hardly any commuter services at all. Therefore no need for HS2.

 

Invest a fraction of the money saved into a true information network and we'd have a healthier less stressed populace.

 

Having people working locally would revitalise local communities that at present are little more than dormitories, possibly bringing life back to high streets around the country as people would be in the area 7 days a week rather just at weekends.

 

I could go on, but you get the drift.

 

[Mike55]

6 minutes ago, KevMc said:

The reason we "need" HS2 is because the commuter lines don't have the capacity for people going to work and freight. Now if we reduced the number of people using the train for work we'd have enough capacity for freight without HS2. The reason we have so many people commuting is because we are stuck in a 19th century mindset where people carrying out office work have to attend an office, so they can work on a screen at a desk, when in fact the vast majority of the work done in offices around cities can be done either at home or in e-hubs in the neighbourhood.

 

Take away all the commuters that could work locally, and you wouldn't need the armies of ancillary workers that exist merely to service office space in the city, so you would end up with a very very small number of people who really had to be in offices in cities (though I'm not sure who they would be)  ... and by releasing all the office space in the city centres property prices would fall so those who needed to work there could also afford to live there, we'd end up needing hardly any commuter services at all. Therefore no need for HS2.

 

Invest a fraction of the money saved into a true information network and we'd have a healthier less stressed populace.

 

Having people working locally would revitalise local communities that at present are little more than dormitories, possibly bringing life back to high streets around the country as people would be in the area 7 days a week rather just at weekends.

 

I could go on, but you get the drift.

 

Be careful what you wish for - oddly many (well some) humans actually like to be in the company of other humans rather than just communicating via electronic means.  I could work from home a lot more than I do, but I prefer to create a clear distinction between work and home life by going to the office. What would the social and mental health effects be of what you suggest? There's more than enough social isolation in this country already.

[KevMc]

5 minutes ago, Mike55 said:

Be careful what you wish for - oddly many (well some) humans actually like to be in the company of other humans rather than just communicating via electronic means.  I could work from home a lot more than I do, but I prefer to create a clear distinction between work and home life by going to the office. What would the social and mental health effects be of what you suggest? There's more than enough social isolation in this country already.

That's why I include e-hubs as a working option.  These are shared office spaces where anyone can go to use like a hot desk in a regular office, the difference is that they are local so you meet people from your community not people that sleep upto a hundred miles away.

 

[Athy]

26 minutes ago, Mike55 said:

Be careful what you wish for - oddly many (well some) humans actually like to be in the company of other humans rather than just communicating via electronic means. 

Yes - so bring back Bournville, Saltaire, Fleetville and their like.

[Stilllearning]

48 minutes ago, KevMc said:

The reason we "need" HS2 is because the commuter lines don't have the capacity for people going to work and freight. Now if we reduced the number of people using the train for work we'd have enough capacity for freight without HS2. The reason we have so many people commuting is because we are stuck in a 19th century mindset where people carrying out office work have to attend an office, so they can work on a screen at a desk, when in fact the vast majority of the work done in offices around cities can be done either at home or in e-hubs in the neighbourhood.

 

Take away all the commuters that could work locally, and you wouldn't need the armies of ancillary workers that exist merely to service office space in the city, so you would end up with a very very small number of people who really had to be in offices in cities (though I'm not sure who they would be)  ... and by releasing all the office space in the city centres property prices would fall so those who needed to work there could also afford to live there, we'd end up needing hardly any commuter services at all. Therefore no need for HS2.

 

Invest a fraction of the money saved into a true information network and we'd have a healthier less stressed populace.

 

Having people working locally would revitalise local communities that at present are little more than dormitories, possibly bringing life back to high streets around the country as people would be in the area 7 days a week rather just at weekends.

 

I could go on, but you get the drift.

 

Spot on, but it isn’t likely to happen, for the reason you pointed out:  property prices would fall, and multinational property companies, and those who invest in them, would (hopefully) go bust.

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Stilllearning
I had more to say

[Nightwatch]

2 hours ago, KevMc said:

The reason we "need" HS2 is because the commuter lines don't have the capacity for people going to work and freight. Now if we reduced the number of people using the train for work we'd have enough capacity for freight without HS2. The reason we have so many people commuting is because we are stuck in a 19th century mindset where people carrying out office work have to attend an office, so they can work on a screen at a desk, when in fact the vast majority of the work done in offices around cities can be done either at home or in e-hubs in the neighbourhood.

 

Take away all the commuters that could work locally, and you wouldn't need the armies of ancillary workers that exist merely to service office space in the city, so you would end up with a very very small number of people who really had to be in offices in cities (though I'm not sure who they would be)  ... and by releasing all the office space in the city centres property prices would fall so those who needed to work there could also afford to live there, we'd end up needing hardly any commuter services at all. Therefore no need for HS2.

 

Invest a fraction of the money saved into a true information network and we'd have a healthier less stressed populace.

 

Having people working locally would revitalise local communities that at present are little more than dormitories, possibly bringing life back to high streets around the country as people would be in the area 7 days a week rather just at weekends.

 

I could go on, but you get the drift.

 

I agree. Whole heartedly. We have gone daft.

 

[Nightwatch]

Property prices are high because of demand. If the value of your property goes through the roof, so has the value of the house you intend to replace it with. It's all relevant. I don't own a property, so I don't care if the price of property falls. Those greedy beggars that have mortgaged themselves to the hilt will of course suffer. Doesn't concern me in the least. 

 

Selfish? Me? Nah!

[Machpoint005]

25 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

Property prices are high because of demand.

And demand is high because successive governments have failed to build enough homes. It started with Thatcher flogging off council houses and not letting the councils use the money to replace them, and it was made worse by that slightly paler blue Tory Blair. 

 

Not surprising, given who gives money to the Nasty Party. 

2 hours ago, KevMc said:

That's why I include e-hubs as a working option.  These are shared office spaces where anyone can go to use like a hot desk in a regular office, the difference is that they are local so you meet people from your community not people that sleep upto a hundred miles away.

 

Cafes and pubs do the same job, but pubs are still closing by the dozen every week. Nevertheless, I agree with your sentiments, having worked from home for the last 15 years.  

[StephenA]

43 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

Property prices are high because of demand. If the value of your property goes through the roof, so has the value of the house you intend to replace it with.

 

Selfish? Me? Nah!

The rebuild cost of my house is significantly lower than the price I purchased it for (even after 16 years)  because the real value lies not in the house but in the land it stands on.

[Tanglewood]

3 hours ago, KevMc said:

The reason we "need" HS2 is because the commuter lines don't have the capacity for people going to work and freight. Now if we reduced the number of people using the train for work we'd have enough capacity for freight without HS2. The reason we have so many people commuting is because we are stuck in a 19th century mindset where people carrying out office work have to attend an office, so they can work on a screen at a desk, when in fact the vast majority of the work done in offices around cities can be done either at home or in e-hubs in the neighbourhood.

 

Take away all the commuters that could work locally, and you wouldn't need the armies of ancillary workers that exist merely to service office space in the city, so you would end up with a very very small number of people who really had to be in offices in cities (though I'm not sure who they would be)  ... and by releasing all the office space in the city centres property prices would fall so those who needed to work there could also afford to live there, we'd end up needing hardly any commuter services at all. Therefore no need for HS2.

 

Invest a fraction of the money saved into a true information network and we'd have a healthier less stressed populace.

 

Having people working locally would revitalise local communities that at present are little more than dormitories, possibly bringing life back to high streets around the country as people would be in the area 7 days a week rather just at weekends.

 

I could go on, but you get the drift.

 

This is so true.  Visiting London it feels as if there is  a 1:1 correlation between those who make money from tapping a keyboard and those who make much less money making sandwiches and coffee for the first group.  Sadly there appears to be even less office space than needed, because 2 out of 3 people trying to buy coffee cannot sit down because those making money from tapping a keyboard have taken all the seats.

 

I am retired, but it struck me that travelling 15 miles to work every day I was passing people coming to work in my town, whereas I was travelling to work in their town.  Completely bonkers.

 

 

[furnessvale]

5 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

I'm sure you didn't intend it as a direct substitution, but the last time I looked HS2 goes roughly N-S whereas Oxford-Cambridge is W-E.

Very true.  The extra road capacity I refer to is that in a north south direction which will be built if HS2 isn't.

 

George

[George and Dragon]

58 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Very true.  The extra road capacity I refer to is that in a north south direction which will be built if HS2 isn't.

 

George

Unfortunately I don't believe the construction or otherwise of HS2 will affect the desire for increased road capacity in the slightest. The only way to slow or halt the growth of road transport will be to ban it outright and that just isn't going to happen.