Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 Sustainable long term investment in housing projects and roads would seem to be much less of a risk and and guaranteed greater benefit for more of us . Will the houses be for sale or will they 4 bedroomed detached bachelor pads be used to house down and out unemployed single men paid for by Joe Taxpayer?
MooseBreath Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 Sustainable long term investment in housing projects and roads would seem to be much less of a risk and and guaranteed greater benefit for more of us . How would that make for a "guaranteed greater benefit for more of us"?
Zingari Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 Will the houses be for sale or will they 4 bedroomed detached bachelor pads be used to house down and out unemployed single men paid for by Joe Taxpayer? i don't know , as moosey says "Ain't nobody what can see into da future tho" How would that make for a "guaranteed greater benefit for more of us"? i don't know , "Ain't nobody what can see into da future tho"
Zingari Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 surely anyone can see that in the foreseeable future at least , housing and road projects would benefit a far greater number of people that a fookin railway track
Rincewind Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 I think the houses may be mansions in London for MP's where they will be able to claim an allowance for unused spare bedrooms but then again; "Ain't nobody what can see into da future tho"
MooseBreath Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 surely anyone can see that in the foreseeable future at least , housing and road projects would benefit a far greater number of people that a fookin railway track Maybe, maybe not. A million houses aren't much use to a country where business has ground to a halt due to poor infrastructure. Roads are all well and good but they're not high speed. Both will face monumental opposition from environmentalists.
Webbo Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 I think the houses may be mansions in London for MP's where they will be able to claim an allowance for unused spare bedrooms but then again; "Ain't nobody what can see into da future tho" I think we could all see that one coming Ken.
Finnegan Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 I honestly have no idea. Seems irrelevant to Leicester to be honest, our train service is fantastic to London, quick, clean and cheap (providing you book in advance, I got caught for a single for £130 about a year ago). Getting to the North quicker would be better though, taking 2 and a half hours to get to Manchester is a joke. I wouldn't call it cheap. Even if you book in advance you're looking at thirty odd quid, absolute minimum. That's completely off peak with no flexibility. An off peak "open" return is fifty odd quid.
Rincewind Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 It doesn't matter what I post I can always rely on a near instant response from Moose.
Zingari Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 Maybe, maybe not. A million houses aren't much use to a country where business has ground to a halt due to poor infrastructure. Roads are all well and good but they're not high speed. Both will face monumental opposition from environmentalists. I'm not really sure why they need to be high speed , we live in a technologically advanced age now , information isn't reliant on land speed and HS2 isn't for freight just passengers , so just what is it for this hundred miles of track for ? This short length of track isn't going to save from a disaster such as you are proposing. More likely a crumbling road system and poor housing will cause the country greater harm than a lack of a few miles of high speed track. Motorways and roads go anywhere and everywhere, High speed trains can't and never will. This is like having a discussion about why we need to invest in the pony express .
Webbo Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 I'm not really sure why they need to be high speed , we live in a technologically advanced age now , information isn't reliant on land speed and HS2 isn't for freight , so just what is it for this hundred miles of track for ? This short length of track isn't going to save from a disaster such as you are using. More likely a crumbling road system will This is like having a discussion about why we need to invest in the pony express or a new Concorde. If you're going to build a brand new track you might as well build it to the best standard available.
Zingari Posted 27 September 2013 Posted 27 September 2013 If you're going to build a brand new track you might as well build it to the best standard available. Quite so , hopefully these trains will still run if some leaves fall on the track or we get more than a millimetre of snow .
Vacamion Posted 28 September 2013 Posted 28 September 2013 If we are going to spend £50bn on a long term transport project, why on earth should we spend it on 19th Century technology? Why not build 12 x Elon Musk style "Hyperloops" ? From the BBC: Mr Musk estimated the system linking the two cities, which are 380 miles (610km) apart, would cost $6bn (£3.9bn). Capsules could depart as often as every 30 seconds and could also carry cars, travelling at up to 760mph (1,220 km/h), nearly the speed of sound.
Strokes Posted 28 September 2013 Posted 28 September 2013 I wouldn't call it cheap. Even if you book in advance you're looking at thirty odd quid, absolute minimum. That's completely off peak with no flexibility. An off peak "open" return is fifty odd quid. Thats good value compared to fuel and parking.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.