The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

I'm guessing that costs will only increase even higher with time.
Smaller scale analogy. Who all wishes they bought their dream bike at pre-covid prices?

Pross

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Surely the longer it gets pushed out the more it will cost overall?

kingstongraham

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Surely the longer it gets pushed out the more it will cost overall?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/09/hs2-costs-soar-as-ministers-prepare-to-deliver-more-bad-news-on-timetable

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Surely the longer it gets pushed out the more it will cost overall?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/09/hs2-costs-soar-as-ministers-prepare-to-deliver-more-bad-news-on-timetable

Yeah, I just don't get the idea that delaying it saves cost. The current inflation in construction is ridiculous, higher than the general inflation figure, but even if they hold back that increase will be 'baked in' (hate that phrase!) and then they'll have a few more years of inflation on top unless they are counting on deflation in the industry somewhere along the line.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Surely the longer it gets pushed out the more it will cost overall?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/09/hs2-costs-soar-as-ministers-prepare-to-deliver-more-bad-news-on-timetable

Yeah, I just don't get the idea that delaying it saves cost. The current inflation in construction is ridiculous, higher than the general inflation figure, but even if they hold back that increase will be 'baked in' (hate that phrase!) and then they'll have a few more years of inflation on top unless they are counting on deflation in the industry somewhere along the line.

Agreed - it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Surely the longer it gets pushed out the more it will cost overall?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/09/hs2-costs-soar-as-ministers-prepare-to-deliver-more-bad-news-on-timetable

Yeah, I just don't get the idea that delaying it saves cost. The current inflation in construction is ridiculous, higher than the general inflation figure, but even if they hold back that increase will be 'baked in' (hate that phrase!) and then they'll have a few more years of inflation on top unless they are counting on deflation in the industry somewhere along the line.

Delaying rarely saves money, but I guess it is possible if you think some materials e.g. steel will drop in price when power prices fall over the next couple of years.

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Maybe they see it's main benefit as being counter cyclical so it would make sense to mothball as much as possible and then crank it back up when necessary.

I would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts as a profit

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Maybe they see it's main benefit as being counter cyclical so it would make sense to mothball as much as possible and then crank it back up when necessary.

I would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts as a profit

And if anyone wants to buy a Chiltern mine, all the better,

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

A new theory. It is being reported as saving money. It will not. It will defer cost.
Deferred onto the next government.

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

A new theory. It is being reported as saving money. It will not. It will defer cost.
Deferred onto the next government.

Clears room for tax cuts by kicking the can.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Maybe they see it's main benefit as being counter cyclical so it would make sense to mothball as much as possible and then crank it back up when necessary.

I would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts as a profit

Show your working.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

A new theory. It is being reported as saving money. It will not. It will defer cost.
Deferred onto the next government.

Clears room for tax cuts by kicking the can.

Yup!

rick_chasey

Of course the Tories stop the investment as soon as it reaches the north

focuszing723

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-texas-town-52386513
This might be the answer.

pblakeney

focuszing723 said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-texas-town-52386513
This might be the answer.

This answer was popular with employers in the 19th century.

focuszing723

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-texas-town-52386513
This might be the answer.

This answer was popular with employers in the 19th century.

Yeah, I was going to post about George Cadbury.

rjsterry

The site plan is pretty standard issue US property developer stuff.

Pross

focuszing723 said:

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-texas-town-52386513
This might be the answer.

This answer was popular with employers in the 19th century.

Yeah, I was going to post about George Cadbury.

It was very much a Quaker thing. As well as Cadbury there were the Rowntrees, Levers, Clarkes etc.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Maybe they see it's main benefit as being counter cyclical so it would make sense to mothball as much as possible and then crank it back up when necessary.

I would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts as a profit

Show your working.

Suppose you drew a line under it and shut it down, the amount you would save in not finishing it would be greater than the origial budget estimate. In future years when you sold off land and property it would show as a profit.

Anyway it seems fairly obvious that they have decided not to build it but are anouncing it in a way to save face.

Pross

I suspect Musk's version would be more like a Victorian mining or mill town though with a truck system meaning employees are indebted to him.

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Maybe they see it's main benefit as being counter cyclical so it would make sense to mothball as much as possible and then crank it back up when necessary.

I would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts as a profit

Show your working.

Suppose you drew a line under it and shut it down, the amount you would save in not finishing it would be greater than the origial budget estimate. In future years when you sold off land and property it would show as a profit.

Anyway it seems fairly obvious that they have decided not to build it but are anouncing it in a way to save face.

I heard it is to be a 10 year delay.
To my mind that means it is not going to happen.

Pross

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Maybe they see it's main benefit as being counter cyclical so it would make sense to mothball as much as possible and then crank it back up when necessary.

I would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts as a profit

Show your working.

Suppose you drew a line under it and shut it down, the amount you would save in not finishing it would be greater than the origial budget estimate. In future years when you sold off land and property it would show as a profit.

Anyway it seems fairly obvious that they have decided not to build it but are anouncing it in a way to save face.

I heard it is to be a 10 year delay.
To my mind that means it is not going to happen.

Or by time it happens it will already be outdated.

They did the same with the electrification of the South Wales to London line, it was supposed to go to Swansea and they then cut it off at Cardiff. It really doesn't help the perception that politicians don't care about anything outside of London. Crossrail on the other hand was completed despite a 30% overspend (although Crossrail 2 has been paused).

rick_chasey

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Maybe they see it's main benefit as being counter cyclical so it would make sense to mothball as much as possible and then crank it back up when necessary.

I would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts as a profit

Show your working.

Suppose you drew a line under it and shut it down, the amount you would save in not finishing it would be greater than the origial budget estimate. In future years when you sold off land and property it would show as a profit.

Anyway it seems fairly obvious that they have decided not to build it but are anouncing it in a way to save face.

I heard it is to be a 10 year delay.
To my mind that means it is not going to happen.

Or by time it happens it will already be outdated.

They did the same with the electrification of the South Wales to London line, it was supposed to go to Swansea and they then cut it off at Cardiff. It really doesn't help the perception that politicians don't care about anything outside of London. Crossrail on the other hand was completed despite a 30% overspend (although Crossrail 2 has been paused).

It's an absolute shocker. The North is being crippled by properly dysfunctional trains (dear reader, be glad I am not using the trains up North if you find my current train complaints annoying).

They need capacity even more than in the south!

Disgraceful behaviour. Westminster gives no f*cks about the North.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Maybe they see it's main benefit as being counter cyclical so it would make sense to mothball as much as possible and then crank it back up when necessary.

I would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts as a profit

Show your working.

Suppose you drew a line under it and shut it down, the amount you would save in not finishing it would be greater than the origial budget estimate. In future years when you sold off land and property it would show as a profit.

Anyway it seems fairly obvious that they have decided not to build it but are anouncing it in a way to save face.

I heard it is to be a 10 year delay.
To my mind that means it is not going to happen.

Or by time it happens it will already be outdated.

They did the same with the electrification of the South Wales to London line, it was supposed to go to Swansea and they then cut it off at Cardiff. It really doesn't help the perception that politicians don't care about anything outside of London. Crossrail on the other hand was completed despite a 30% overspend (although Crossrail 2 has been paused).

It's an absolute shocker. The North is being crippled by properly dysfunctional trains (dear reader, be glad I am not using the trains up North if you find my current train complaints annoying).

They need capacity even more than in the south!

Disgraceful behaviour. Westminster gives no f*cks about the North.

We're certainly not going to get close to your vision of transport for the future until Governments of any persuasion realise the spending is a societal benefit and that the books will not balance financially. It needs to be considered in the same way as health and education taking a wider look at the benefits. I really don't see how they can have their net zero vision without public transport playing a large part.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Maybe they see it's main benefit as being counter cyclical so it would make sense to mothball as much as possible and then crank it back up when necessary.

I would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts as a profit

Show your working.

Suppose you drew a line under it and shut it down, the amount you would save in not finishing it would be greater than the origial budget estimate. In future years when you sold off land and property it would show as a profit.

Anyway it seems fairly obvious that they have decided not to build it but are anouncing it in a way to save face.

Shutting it down does not stop the spend today. Contracts have to be honoured. The expensive land in London and the Home Counties has already been built on and you are massively overestimating the value of the land purchased further north. The total value of all land purchased is just over £3bn. The contract for the rolling stock has already been signed (£2bn) so that alone will eat up any money from selling undeveloped land. The initial estimate is irrelevant to your calculation. This is a cashflow issue for a project massively impacted by inflation.

kingstongraham

Old Oak Common to Birmingham by 2031 is exactly what was originally promised, I'm sure.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-to-have-new-national-high-speed-rail-network

rjsterry

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

HS2 - is it better to delay, spend less per year, but the same amount overall, push the benefits further out into the future, or to borrow more per year to get it done earlier?

Maybe they see it's main benefit as being counter cyclical so it would make sense to mothball as much as possible and then crank it back up when necessary.

I would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts as a profit

Show your working.

Suppose you drew a line under it and shut it down, the amount you would save in not finishing it would be greater than the origial budget estimate. In future years when you sold off land and property it would show as a profit.

Anyway it seems fairly obvious that they have decided not to build it but are anouncing it in a way to save face.

I heard it is to be a 10 year delay.
To my mind that means it is not going to happen.

Or by time it happens it will already be outdated.

They did the same with the electrification of the South Wales to London line, it was supposed to go to Swansea and they then cut it off at Cardiff. It really doesn't help the perception that politicians don't care about anything outside of London. Crossrail on the other hand was completed despite a 30% overspend (although Crossrail 2 has been paused).

I do get a bit tired of commentary on large infrastructure 'overspends'. It's close to impossible to accurately estimate costs on multi-decade construction projects of this scale. Early numbers are always an informed guess modified by what is politically acceptable.

Pross

Yep, it's bad enough in my own line of work where schemes are usually completed in 12 months or less. I have to do estimates using previous tender rates or Spons and I include a healthy contingency and a caveat that it is estimated but still get moans when the actual tender price comes in (or clients telling me to take out the contingency because the estimate is too high!).

rjsterry

"based on current prices"

kingstongraham

Kingston council demolished the leisure centre rather than repair the roof, promising to build the best leisure centre in London. Can you guess what happened next?