The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
and no longer going up the east side, or past crewe, spur to HS1 or into Londonpblakeney said:
I heard it is to be a 10 year delay.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Show your working.surrey_commuter said:
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.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 would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts 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.
To my mind that means it is not going to happen.0 -
my point is that their policy of shutting it down will save tens of billions in future years and they can claw some back.rjsterry said:
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.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Show your working.surrey_commuter said:
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.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 would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts 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.
They could scrap the high speed element and use it to link some new towns0 -
So not a profit at all then. Just tens of bllions spent on a series of useless tunnels and viaducts.surrey_commuter said:
my point is that their policy of shutting it down will save tens of billions in future years and they can claw some back.rjsterry said:
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.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Show your working.surrey_commuter said:
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.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 would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts 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.
They could scrap the high speed element and use it to link some new towns1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Same status as the infamous Norwegian Blue Parrot.surrey_commuter said:
and no longer going up the east side, or past crewe, spur to HS1 or into Londonpblakeney said:
I heard it is to be a 10 year delay.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Show your working.surrey_commuter said:
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.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 would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts 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.
To my mind that means it is not going to happen.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
How can it possibly be another 20 years before they get the reduced scope done?0
-
crucially I said it would "show" as a profitrjsterry said:
So not a profit at all then. Just tens of bllions spent on a series of useless tunnels and viaducts.surrey_commuter said:
my point is that their policy of shutting it down will save tens of billions in future years and they can claw some back.rjsterry said:
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.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Show your working.surrey_commuter said:
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.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 would shut it down and sell the land. It would show in this year's accts 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.
They could scrap the high speed element and use it to link some new towns0 -
Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
0 -
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
19.9% is a bit weak, they're even behind the Lib Dems.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1 -
Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
No idea, just amusing, in the context of opinions voiced in this thread.0 -
Not the point here, but good trypangolin said:
19.9% is a bit weak, they're even behind the Lib Dems.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Enjoying your ongoing attempts to dictate what "the point" of all discussions is. Especially when it's one someone else started.Stevo_666 said:
Not the point here, but good trypangolin said:
19.9% is a bit weak, they're even behind the Lib Dems.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1 -
The active travel budget for England, set at £710 million over 4 years in 2021 has now been cut by £380 million with only £100 million now available to cover the next 2 years. Ricktopia is feeling an ever more distant dream.1
-
I think at this point we all know the government is going to bimble it's way to a dead end and defer the dates.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Tories arent gonna get us where we need to be. Not yet anyway.Pross said:The active travel budget for England, set at £710 million over 4 years in 2021 has now been cut by £380 million with only £100 million now available to cover the next 2 years. Ricktopia is feeling an ever more distant dream.
0 -
I enjoy your attempts to get 'pet troll' status. Sadly for you, the competition is hotting uppangolin said:
Enjoying your ongoing attempts to dictate what "the point" of all discussions is. Especially when it's one someone else started.Stevo_666 said:
Not the point here, but good trypangolin said:
19.9% is a bit weak, they're even behind the Lib Dems.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not when they will almost certainly be in opposition in the next parliament, no.rick_chasey said:
Tories arent gonna get us where we need to be. Not yet anyway.Pross said:The active travel budget for England, set at £710 million over 4 years in 2021 has now been cut by £380 million with only £100 million now available to cover the next 2 years. Ricktopia is feeling an ever more distant dream.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
This is true, there are many other reasons to vote against them.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
0 -
Wonder if Brian will be annoyed with you for agreeing that what he posted is a bit weak?kingstongraham said:
This is true, there are many other reasons to vote against them.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Wonder if Brian will be annoyed with you for agreeing that what he posted is a bit weak?kingstongraham said:
This is true, there are many other reasons to vote against them.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Wonder if Brian will be annoyed with you for agreeing that what he posted is a bit weak?kingstongraham said:
This is true, there are many other reasons to vote against them.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
Why should I be annoyed? I just thought it was amusing.0 -
I thought you'd say that.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Wonder if Brian will be annoyed with you for agreeing that what he posted is a bit weak?kingstongraham said:
This is true, there are many other reasons to vote against them.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
Why should I be annoyed? I just thought it was amusing."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think you are mistaken in thinking this is a party political point.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo will be annoyed when he discovers that whoever is using his account has agreed the Conservatives are generally hopeless.Stevo_666 said:
Wonder if Brian will be annoyed with you for agreeing that what he posted is a bit weak?kingstongraham said:
This is true, there are many other reasons to vote against them.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
0 -
Thanks for your valuable contribution...kingstongraham said:
Stevo will be annoyed when he discovers that whoever is using his account has agreed the Conservatives are generally hopeless.Stevo_666 said:
Wonder if Brian will be annoyed with you for agreeing that what he posted is a bit weak?kingstongraham said:
This is true, there are many other reasons to vote against them.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Think I touched a nerve thereStevo_666 said:
Thanks for your valuable contribution...kingstongraham said:
Stevo will be annoyed when he discovers that whoever is using his account has agreed the Conservatives are generally hopeless.Stevo_666 said:
Wonder if Brian will be annoyed with you for agreeing that what he posted is a bit weak?kingstongraham said:
This is true, there are many other reasons to vote against them.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
0 -
Nope, you're just getting a bit tedious these days with the minor trolling instead of saying something interesting.kingstongraham said:
Think I touched a nerve thereStevo_666 said:
Thanks for your valuable contribution...kingstongraham said:
Stevo will be annoyed when he discovers that whoever is using his account has agreed the Conservatives are generally hopeless.Stevo_666 said:
Wonder if Brian will be annoyed with you for agreeing that what he posted is a bit weak?kingstongraham said:
This is true, there are many other reasons to vote against them.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Definitely touched a nerve.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, you're just getting a bit tedious these days with the minor trolling instead of saying something interesting.kingstongraham said:
Think I touched a nerve thereStevo_666 said:
Thanks for your valuable contribution...kingstongraham said:
Stevo will be annoyed when he discovers that whoever is using his account has agreed the Conservatives are generally hopeless.Stevo_666 said:
Wonder if Brian will be annoyed with you for agreeing that what he posted is a bit weak?kingstongraham said:
This is true, there are many other reasons to vote against them.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
0 -
I rest my case, troll boy.kingstongraham said:
Definitely touched a nerve.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, you're just getting a bit tedious these days with the minor trolling instead of saying something interesting.kingstongraham said:
Think I touched a nerve thereStevo_666 said:
Thanks for your valuable contribution...kingstongraham said:
Stevo will be annoyed when he discovers that whoever is using his account has agreed the Conservatives are generally hopeless.Stevo_666 said:
Wonder if Brian will be annoyed with you for agreeing that what he posted is a bit weak?kingstongraham said:
This is true, there are many other reasons to vote against them.Stevo_666 said:
Thats a bit weak. Do you think there were no other factors influencing the vote?briantrumpet said:Seems that Tories' new-found worries about the affordability of ULEZ expansion on the poor didn't have the desired effect.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
