'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff

focuszing723

https://vividmaps.com/global-map-showing-the-ownership-vs-rental-split-rate/
Interesting, I've heard before the percentage of people renting is high in Germany.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

That Gove leak to the times about 250,000 more homes by 2040 in Cambridge has brought out all the worst local NIMBYs and people who cannot understand that the big majority of people in Cambridge have nothing to do with the uni and so give absolutely no sh!ts about the Oxbridge rivalry.

I haven't seen that leak but I think even I'd be up in arms at 250,000 new homes in a minor regional city. The current population is around 150,000 so that would get increased to around 1 million. Are you sure you have the correct number or did you mean 25,000? Even 25,000 would be a struggle to get actually built in 17 years with the current planning system and construction skills shortages.

Edit - I've just found reports, it's obvious Gove is still indulging in hard drug use.

It's so obviously an bullsh*t figure. It's more than the entire country builds in a year. Why is anyone taking it seriously?

I just love the irony that the Tories have backtracked on their policies to make development easier and remove Councils' requirements to deliver housing targets to keep the Home County NIMBYS happy but now they are going to smooth the path to make one rural city 7-8 times larger than it is at present together with associated infrastructure and industry by removing environmental regualtions (and also build over some of the most productive farmland in the country).

Do you think they ever spend time considering their policies before announcing them? I'm also not sure Silicon Valley is a good role model as even well paid tech industry employees are unable to afford to live there and have to spend hours commuting or, apparentyly, sleep in their offices / cars. I guess it will all be irrelevant after next year's election anyway.

If were a serious proposal, I'd be interested in the impact of concreting over low-lying farmland on this scale... seems like a long way for run-off water to get to the sea when the elevation is about 10m ASL.

Let's not glorify this by calling it a policy. It's a desperate say-something-for-likes attempt to arrest the death spiral.

rick_chasey

I mean, Cambridge certainly needs to loosen the planning laws to build houses etc, but you already have actual cities missing really basic infrastructure up north and no-one ever thinks about then.

Yorkshire could have it all. Leeds, Sheffield, York, and a host of other smaller cities and towns is a perfect triangle for a proper business and investment area.

Ripe for investment. Leeds is the biggest city in Europe without a form of light-rail or underground. It's mad.

But Tories are incapable of thinking of the North as anything but a pain.

York can be your academic highbrow stuff, Leeds your services, Sheffield your high-end manufacturing. boom.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

That Gove leak to the times about 250,000 more homes by 2040 in Cambridge has brought out all the worst local NIMBYs and people who cannot understand that the big majority of people in Cambridge have nothing to do with the uni and so give absolutely no sh!ts about the Oxbridge rivalry.

I haven't seen that leak but I think even I'd be up in arms at 250,000 new homes in a minor regional city. The current population is around 150,000 so that would get increased to around 1 million. Are you sure you have the correct number or did you mean 25,000? Even 25,000 would be a struggle to get actually built in 17 years with the current planning system and construction skills shortages.

Edit - I've just found reports, it's obvious Gove is still indulging in hard drug use.

It's so obviously an bullsh*t figure. It's more than the entire country builds in a year. Why is anyone taking it seriously?

I just love the irony that the Tories have backtracked on their policies to make development easier and remove Councils' requirements to deliver housing targets to keep the Home County NIMBYS happy but now they are going to smooth the path to make one rural city 7-8 times larger than it is at present together with associated infrastructure and industry by removing environmental regualtions (and also build over some of the most productive farmland in the country).

Do you think they ever spend time considering their policies before announcing them? I'm also not sure Silicon Valley is a good role model as even well paid tech industry employees are unable to afford to live there and have to spend hours commuting or, apparentyly, sleep in their offices / cars. I guess it will all be irrelevant after next year's election anyway.

If were a serious proposal, I'd be interested in the impact of concreting over low-lying farmland on this scale... seems like a long way for run-off water to get to the sea when the elevation is about 10m ASL.

Let's not glorify this by calling it a policy. It's a desperate say-something-for-likes attempt to arrest the death spiral.

Sorry, should have said " 'policy' [sic]"

I've just had an idea. Maybe Musk needs a new challenge.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

I mean, Cambridge certainly needs to loosen the planning laws to build houses etc, but you already have actual cities missing really basic infrastructure up north and no-one ever thinks about then.

Yorkshire could have it all. Leeds, Sheffield, York, and a host of other smaller cities and towns is a perfect triangle for a proper business and investment area.

Ripe for investment. Leeds is the biggest city in Europe without a form of light-rail or underground. It's mad.

But Tories are incapable of thinking of the North as anything but a pain.

York can be your academic highbrow stuff, Leeds your services, Sheffield your high-end manufacturing. boom.

If I ever go oop north by car, the density of big towns and cities always hits me... as did the observation made to me that the Peak District has (IIRC) a population of 20m within an hour's drive, whereas Dartmoor has 2m within an hour's drive.

rick_chasey

Yeah. It's the same reason places like Doncaster city centre are desolate places, because it's literally 20mins into another buzzing city centre.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

I mean, Cambridge certainly needs to loosen the planning laws to build houses etc, but you already have actual cities missing really basic infrastructure up north and no-one ever thinks about then.

Yorkshire could have it all. Leeds, Sheffield, York, and a host of other smaller cities and towns is a perfect triangle for a proper business and investment area.

Ripe for investment. Leeds is the biggest city in Europe without a form of light-rail or underground. It's mad.

But Tories are incapable of thinking of the North as anything but a pain.

York can be your academic highbrow stuff, Leeds your services, Sheffield your high-end manufacturing. boom.

rick_chasey said:

I mean, Cambridge certainly needs to loosen the planning laws to build houses etc, but you already have actual cities missing really basic infrastructure up north and no-one ever thinks about then.

Yorkshire could have it all. Leeds, Sheffield, York, and a host of other smaller cities and towns is a perfect triangle for a proper business and investment area.

Ripe for investment. Leeds is the biggest city in Europe without a form of light-rail or underground. It's mad.

But Tories are incapable of thinking of the North as anything but a pain.

York can be your academic highbrow stuff, Leeds your services, Sheffield your high-end manufacturing. boom.

Could you give a brief indication on how the Govt could achieve that?

Jezyboy

Cross rail for the north?

surrey_commuter

Jezyboy said:

Cross rail for the north?

I was hoping for a little more detail on how that would lead to York can be your academic highbrow stuff, Leeds your services, Sheffield your high-end manufacturing. boom.

super_davo

When HS2 was announced, I remember people in Manchester saying that they didn't need to save 45 minutes getting to London, they needed trains that could get them from the surrounding towns to the centre and back again reliably. It's the same right the way across the north, before you even start on getting from one city to the next (relatively close) city. Everyone drives for those sort of journeys, which then means the road network struggles.

The Northern Powerhouse was actually a very good idea, but obviously died a death with Osborne and Cameron (and their rate of progress was similar to "levelling up").

FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!

surrey_commuter

super_davo said:

When HS2 was announced, I remember people in Manchester saying that they didn't need to save 45 minutes getting to London, they needed trains that could get them from the surrounding towns to the centre and back again reliably. It's the same right the way across the north, before you even start on getting from one city to the next (relatively close) city. Everyone drives for those sort of journeys, which then means the road network struggles.

The Northern Powerhouse was actually a very good idea, but obviously died a death with Osborne and Cameron (and their rate of progress was similar to "levelling up").

FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!

why not develop a corridor between Oxford and Cambridge?

And if we all just agree that Cambridge is in theNorth then we can tick another box

Pross

Surely anything that benefits Cambridge will be voted down by the MPs that went to Oxford and vice versa?

Jezyboy

super_davo said:

When HS2 was announced, I remember people in Manchester saying that they didn't need to save 45 minutes getting to London, they needed trains that could get them from the surrounding towns to the centre and back again reliably. It's the same right the way across the north, before you even start on getting from one city to the next (relatively close) city. Everyone drives for those sort of journeys, which then means the road network struggles.

The Northern Powerhouse was actually a very good idea, but obviously died a death with Osborne and Cameron (and their rate of progress was similar to "levelling up").

FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!

I would guess partly that's because HS2 was oversold on speed and undersold on capacity. I think the reality is that there probably is (or was) the need for the extra rail line AND better connections within the region.

I'm not sure what regional city I'd pick!

briantrumpet

super_davo said:

FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!

Isn't it fen land for a good (drainage) reason? Assuming that climate change/chaos forecasts are right, that doesn't seem like a good long-term prospect.

Pross

briantrumpet said:

super_davo said:

FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!

Isn't it fen land for a good (drainage) reason? Assuming that climate change/chaos forecasts are right, that doesn't seem like a good long-term prospect.

Maybe the similarity they are aiming for with Silicon Valley is to build in an area likely to be prone to natural disaster.

First.Aspect

focuszing723 said:

https://vividmaps.com/global-map-showing-the-ownership-vs-rental-split-rate/
Interesting, I've heard before the percentage of people renting is high in Germany.

I'd be interested in a play of Ave house price (as a multiple of ave income) vs. % ownership.

On that metric my hunch is that Germany and the UK would be outliers.

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

https://vividmaps.com/global-map-showing-the-ownership-vs-rental-split-rate/
Interesting, I've heard before the percentage of people renting is high in Germany.

I'd be interested in a play of Ave house price (as a multiple of ave income) vs. % ownership.

On that metric my hunch is that Germany and the UK would be outliers.

seems German house prices were flat until GFC then doubled in 10 years

surrey_commuter

Jezyboy said:

super_davo said:

When HS2 was announced, I remember people in Manchester saying that they didn't need to save 45 minutes getting to London, they needed trains that could get them from the surrounding towns to the centre and back again reliably. It's the same right the way across the north, before you even start on getting from one city to the next (relatively close) city. Everyone drives for those sort of journeys, which then means the road network struggles.

The Northern Powerhouse was actually a very good idea, but obviously died a death with Osborne and Cameron (and their rate of progress was similar to "levelling up").

FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!

I would guess partly that's because HS2 was oversold on speed and undersold on capacity. I think the reality is that there probably is (or was) the need for the extra rail line AND better connections within the region.

I'm not sure what regional city I'd pick!

create a new one between Brum and Notts. A bit like Brasilia/Washington/Canberaa it would be the political capital of the country.

surrey_commuter

Jezyboy said:

super_davo said:

When HS2 was announced, I remember people in Manchester saying that they didn't need to save 45 minutes getting to London, they needed trains that could get them from the surrounding towns to the centre and back again reliably. It's the same right the way across the north, before you even start on getting from one city to the next (relatively close) city. Everyone drives for those sort of journeys, which then means the road network struggles.

The Northern Powerhouse was actually a very good idea, but obviously died a death with Osborne and Cameron (and their rate of progress was similar to "levelling up").

FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!

I would guess partly that's because HS2 was oversold on speed and undersold on capacity. I think the reality is that there probably is (or was) the need for the extra rail line AND better connections within the region.

I'm not sure what regional city I'd pick!

How can something called High Speed 2 be "oversold on speed"?

If they wanted to increase capacity they could have saved a fortune by not speccing it so trains could run so fast.

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

super_davo said:

When HS2 was announced, I remember people in Manchester saying that they didn't need to save 45 minutes getting to London, they needed trains that could get them from the surrounding towns to the centre and back again reliably. It's the same right the way across the north, before you even start on getting from one city to the next (relatively close) city. Everyone drives for those sort of journeys, which then means the road network struggles.

The Northern Powerhouse was actually a very good idea, but obviously died a death with Osborne and Cameron (and their rate of progress was similar to "levelling up").

FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!

I would guess partly that's because HS2 was oversold on speed and undersold on capacity. I think the reality is that there probably is (or was) the need for the extra rail line AND better connections within the region.

I'm not sure what regional city I'd pick!

How can something called High Speed 2 be "oversold on speed"?

If they wanted to increase capacity they could have saved a fortune by not speccing it so trains could run so fast.

High speed relates to the speed of construction?

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

super_davo said:

When HS2 was announced, I remember people in Manchester saying that they didn't need to save 45 minutes getting to London, they needed trains that could get them from the surrounding towns to the centre and back again reliably. It's the same right the way across the north, before you even start on getting from one city to the next (relatively close) city. Everyone drives for those sort of journeys, which then means the road network struggles.

The Northern Powerhouse was actually a very good idea, but obviously died a death with Osborne and Cameron (and their rate of progress was similar to "levelling up").

FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!

I would guess partly that's because HS2 was oversold on speed and undersold on capacity. I think the reality is that there probably is (or was) the need for the extra rail line AND better connections within the region.

I'm not sure what regional city I'd pick!

How can something called High Speed 2 be "oversold on speed"?

If they wanted to increase capacity they could have saved a fortune by not speccing it so trains could run so fast.

High speed relates to the speed of construction?

😂😂😂

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

super_davo said:

When HS2 was announced, I remember people in Manchester saying that they didn't need to save 45 minutes getting to London, they needed trains that could get them from the surrounding towns to the centre and back again reliably. It's the same right the way across the north, before you even start on getting from one city to the next (relatively close) city. Everyone drives for those sort of journeys, which then means the road network struggles.

The Northern Powerhouse was actually a very good idea, but obviously died a death with Osborne and Cameron (and their rate of progress was similar to "levelling up").

FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!

I would guess partly that's because HS2 was oversold on speed and undersold on capacity. I think the reality is that there probably is (or was) the need for the extra rail line AND better connections within the region.

I'm not sure what regional city I'd pick!

How can something called High Speed 2 be "oversold on speed"?

If they wanted to increase capacity they could have saved a fortune by not speccing it so trains could run so fast.

The new line is a high speed line meaning that everyone else doesn't have to share a line with the high speed services. A moment's thought will tell you why running trains at different speeds on the same track is complicated to say the least.

pblakeney

I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.

It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.

The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.

Given that it's main function is to increase capacity by providing a separate line for high speed services (intercity if you prefer) you should be happy with the project.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.

Given that it's main function is to increase capacity by providing a separate line for high speed services (intercity if you prefer) you should be happy with the project.

Not really. There is more need for cross country services. As has been pointed out many times previously.

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.

It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.

The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.

Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.

It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.

The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.

Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.

It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.

The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.

Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.

Yup different model. Trains are in general longer and faster and run fewer services.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.

It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.

The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.

Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

I still think capacity and availability trump speed all day, every day.
Speed was a vanity project at other's expense.

It makes a bit more sense in France, as the country is so much bigger, but then they did a whole network, rather than one spine route. I wonder what the total cost of that would equate to now.

The first TGV Sud-Est cost just $4 million per km, the lowest figure worldwide (Table 1). More recent projects cost about $10 million per km and the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.

Not a regular on French trains, but I found the frequency of them to be much worse than the UK.

Yup different model. Trains are in general longer and faster and run fewer services.

Even comparable journeys are less frequent eg Paris to Rouen.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

super_davo said:

When HS2 was announced, I remember people in Manchester saying that they didn't need to save 45 minutes getting to London, they needed trains that could get them from the surrounding towns to the centre and back again reliably. It's the same right the way across the north, before you even start on getting from one city to the next (relatively close) city. Everyone drives for those sort of journeys, which then means the road network struggles.

The Northern Powerhouse was actually a very good idea, but obviously died a death with Osborne and Cameron (and their rate of progress was similar to "levelling up").

FWIW I think if you're going to expand any regional city in a big way Cambridge is perfect for it; you've got a lot of fen land that could be built on, good transport links all the way across the country, reasonably close decent size airport in Stansted, thriving local economy. But 250,000 houses sounds bonkers; it should be part of the solution, not the entire solution!

I would guess partly that's because HS2 was oversold on speed and undersold on capacity. I think the reality is that there probably is (or was) the need for the extra rail line AND better connections within the region.

I'm not sure what regional city I'd pick!

How can something called High Speed 2 be "oversold on speed"?

If they wanted to increase capacity they could have saved a fortune by not speccing it so trains could run so fast.

The new line is a high speed line meaning that everyone else doesn't have to share a line with the high speed services. A moment's thought will tell you why running trains at different speeds on the same track is complicated to say the least.

My bad, I thought they were building the new line to a higher spec so that the trains could run faster.