Heartofice Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 10 minutes ago, Bironic said: would say building new highways is never reasonable… Tell that to the people who live in the area. Anyway. Not the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted March 24 Author Share Posted March 24 And it was indeed in Montenegr, or what happens if you remove all the red tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bironic Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 19 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Tell that to the people who live in the area. Anyway. Not the point. I would tell them that building the highway doesn’t solve any problems they have and makes new unnecessary problems… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 47 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said: Public infrastructure projects pretty much always go over budget. 2bn was the first estimate iirc. Usually, you can take the first agreed number and double it mentally. It's usually a combination of Goverments lowballing with their estimates to sell it to the public (taxpayes money etc.) companies bidding on the contract well knowing the rules. And then goverments making last minute changes to the original plans to pacify one group or another. Building right now is super expensive, I don't know if you have noticed. Loans/mortage rates, materials, energy prices. 4x seems a bit excessive. If they went for 2bn to 6bn (3x) I could kinda see how that happened (new highways/motorways/autobahn miles) are sorta notorious in that regard iirc. werthead or anti-targ will probably have a better idea. If you take the Chinese approach (basically fuck the enviroment, we don't really care about that), you could obviously drive costs down. E.g. the Chinese built a highway bridge somewhere in one of the balcan republics (not sure but I think it was Montenegro (?)). It was sorta prestige project for the goverment. Studies showed it not to be viable economically. Chinese loaned the money under the condition that the job gets done by a Chinese company. The once lively river that bridge crossed has been killed in the process. Oh as a bonus, that road is not economically viable, and that goverment now has a real problem serving the Chinese loan and China has increased its influence. Feels like you are dodging the question here. Saying ‘projects go over budget’ doesn’t really touch the sides of £9bn for a river crossing plus the insane amount of time and paperwork involved. The question is whether it is reasonable and whether there might be a signal here that there is something broken with UK planning processes which makes it unreasonably difficult to ever get anything made. Making comparisons to China is totally inappropriate too, again there is a massive difference between ‘less convoluted planning’ and ‘Chinese corruption and white elephant projects’. It’s about a level that is reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 26 minutes ago, Bironic said: I would tell them that building the highway doesn’t solve any problems they have and makes new unnecessary problems… It’s a river crossing, it might help solve the problem for people who need to cross the river Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bironic Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 No it doesn’t. Highways and roads don’t solve traffic problems. That’s proven by every scientific study on that subject. Three things stop traffic: no urban sprawl, short walking/cycling distances to everything you need (work, education, food, hobbies), good public transport (when there’s low demand a bus with a dedicated lane, when there is Higher demand any sort of railroad). so yes instead of building a highway they should either build dedicated bus lanes on existing roads or build a railway… i do agree with your point that there is a middle ground between China and UK when it comes to building stuff. But the biggest problems are generally not environmentalists but rich individuals with money to go through all the courts, poliTical influence and connections, legal expertise, Land they own and don’t sell unless forced to and then only for an extortionate price… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted March 24 Author Share Posted March 24 14 minutes ago, Heartofice said: The question is whether it is reasonable and whether there might be a signal here that there is something broken with UK planning processes which makes it unreasonably difficult to ever get anything made. No Highwa prject is truely reasonable these days, as Bironic put it. The Chinese comparission is valid, in as much they don't give too much thought of the consequences of their projects. Apparently a planning model you seem to like. No red tape whatsoever. Just build the river crossing, let's check for enviromental consequences later (it at all). And those enviromental impact assessments and possible changes to plans are a huge cost driver (and responsible for quite of those many pages of planning). Again, cut those enviromental protections, you have less costs and less paperwork; also less enviroment, but what has nature ever done to deserve protection, right? Spockydog 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 10 minutes ago, Bironic said: No it doesn’t. Highways and roads don’t solve traffic problems. That’s proven by every scientific study on that subject. Three things stop traffic: no urban sprawl, short walking/cycling distances to everything you need (work, education, food, hobbies), good public transport (when there’s low demand a bus with a dedicated lane, when there is Higher demand any sort of railroad). so yes instead of building a highway they should either build dedicated bus lanes on existing roads or build a railway… i do agree with your point that there is a middle ground between China and UK when it comes to building stuff. But the biggest problems are generally not environmentalists but rich individuals with money to go through all the courts, poliTical influence and connections, legal expertise, Land they own and don’t sell unless forced to and then only for an extortionate price… How do they cross the river if the nearest crossing is miles away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said: No Highwa prject is truely reasonable these days, as Bironic put it. The Chinese comparission is valid, in as much they don't give too much thought of the consequences of their projects. Apparently a planning model you seem to like. No red tape whatsoever. Just build the river crossing, let's check for enviromental consequences later (it at all). And those enviromental impact assessments and possible changes to plans are a huge cost driver (and responsible for quite of those many pages of planning). Again, cut those enviromental protections, you have less costs and less paperwork; also less enviroment, but what has nature ever done to deserve protection, right? lol, feel like I’m bashing my head against a wall here. Apparently because I think spending £300m and 13 years just to PLAN a crossing might be a bit much.. I just want to introduce the Chinese system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 You don't need to make comparisons with China, that's a bit extreme, and the Chinese are discovering that their approach is total dogshit which could seriously damage their economy ("We'll loan money to all these poor countries the nasty west won't support!" "Great idea! By the way, all these poor countries the west won't support can't afford to pay us back. They say sorry about that, kthxbye,"), both in terms of internal development and external development. But it's true that Britain does seem less nimble an economy even compared to EU countries, which are not exactly not in love with bureaucracy and red tape. Some of that is down to the size of the country versus its population: we're a small country with a massive population and that severely complicates where we can build things*. The likes of Norway and Sweden are fucking massive countries with comparatively tiny populations, which gives them a huge amount of flexibility. Even France, with a comparable population, has twice as much land to work with; Germany and Italy do have more limitations comparable to ours. *From my days in the Department of Transport, a daily occurrence was someone grumbling, "Why can't we build railways that work like in France and Germany?" and us coming up with some variation of, "Well, we could deploy ten thousand B-17s and Lancasters to renovate the UK transport network from scratch, but that might be controversial." maarsen and Tears of Lys 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bironic Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 hours ago, Heartofice said: How do they cross the river if the nearest crossing is miles away? Railway/metro/light rail bridge/tunnel? Way more capacity for transport than a highway… for much less space and all the other damages… or if it has to be a road build one with a dedicated bus lane, again more transport capacity than a highway, so significantly less traffic and other damages… 7 minutes ago, Werthead said: *From my days in the Department of Transport, a daily occurrence was someone grumbling, "Why can't we build railways that work like in France and Germany?" and us coming up with some variation of, "Well, we could deploy ten thousand B-17s and Lancasters to renovate the UK transport network from scratch, but that might be controversial." Yes comparing with France or sweden is not very sound, but there are other comparable countries and they do seem to have their own problems and still be more efficient than the UK: Norway for example is massive but most of it is mountains so actually very difficult/expensive to build there, Italy has loads of mountains and hills as well as does Japan… South Korea, Benelux and Germany are roughly comparable but at least SK and Benelux seems to be more efficient… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 35 minutes ago, Werthead said: ("We'll loan money to all these poor countries the nasty west won't support!" "Great idea! By the way, all these poor countries the west won't support can't afford to pay us back. They say sorry about that, kthxbye," OTOH, these 'loans' have given Russia and China access and possession of loads of rare earth minerals and other extraction wealth, so .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Right wing bigoted bellends, are you not entertained? maarsen, Deadlines? What Deadlines? and Craving Peaches 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadlines? What Deadlines? Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 29 minutes ago, Spockydog said: Right wing bigoted bellends, are you not entertained? Why Nike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 6 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said: Why Nike? They dared to change the colour of the Cross of St. George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadlines? What Deadlines? Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Spockydog said: They dared to change the colour of the Cross of St. George. You mean like this? ETA: It's not purple. It's lavender. And it's fabulous. Edited March 24 by Deadlines? What Deadlines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Just as a footnote, the Queensferry Crossing was completed under budget and while it was delayed, that was mainly due to weather issues. It did take about four years to go from the proposal to construction starting, with public consultation and environmental impact assessments and so on, but that isn't an unreasonable time for a project of that scale and importance. British planning laws certainly can do with some improvement but as ever, the story is more complicated than anecdotal data suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 3 hours ago, Bironic said: Railway/metro/light rail bridge/tunnel? Way more capacity for transport than a highway… for much less space and all the other damages… or if it has to be a road build one with a dedicated bus lane, again more transport capacity than a highway, so significantly less traffic and other damages… Okay, you're not wrong in your general point that 'increasing roads doesn't decrease traffic'. But you're arguing with a generality and not with the specifics of this case, which is that it's being considered, in part, to relieve pressure on the Dartford Crossing specifically. Which it would almost certainly do. There is already a rail link between Essex and Kent relatively close to the area, but the problem in question here is that pretty much everyone in the east of England who wants to cross the Thames by car has precisely one crossing to choose from. The planning here acknowledges that it would increase traffic in general, because like you say it always does- but someone travelling from, say, Chelmsford, or Norwich to Dover not needing to get onto the M25 to do so would almost definitely decrease pressure there. Which is the point. In that respect, really none of your alternatives make sense. Building a new metro system all the way out to Gravesend just to link it to Tilbury would be very expensive and solve almost none of the problem, since people travelling from Gravesend to Tilbury aren't really the major cause of traffic at Dartford. Since there already is a rail link in the area, another one right there without any other changes probably wouldn't make a huge difference. Making a more robust network probably would, but it'd need a completely new rail network all the way around England's south-east, running crossways to London and not just in-out - it'd be a ludicrously more complicated project than building a tunnel and connecting the roads on. I'm not actually against that- the Beeching Cuts were a load of shite and hurt Britain to this day- but it's not a viable immediate alternative, or a project any politician would feel able to justify. The bus lane idea... well, I'm all for having a bus lane but (1) it wouldn't solve the main problem the thing is being built for and (2) you still need to build the tunnel anyway. Making it just for buses would, again, not solve the problem. On the price note, @Heartofice: while it does still seem very very high, I would say that the cost involved isn't just for the tunnel itself- it's for a whole new major road, including a completely new junction on the M25 and maneuvering bypasses around several towns. And for all that environmental activism is easy to mock, the Thames Estuary has always been a pretty highly-focused area of conservation, so I'm not surprised there were issues around that. I'm not sure it should cost 9 billion, but I can imagine that would be complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 In other news, Jeremy Hunt confirms that while there's no money for council services, rebuilding schools, reducing NHS waiting lists, public sector pay rises, funding Universities, or (relevant to current discussion) renewing crumbling infrastructure, the triple lock on pensions is absolutely sacrosanct. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68649894 Labour expected to follow suit. There is no better demonstration to young people of why it is vital to turn out at every election than how pensioners are rewarded for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 5 hours ago, Werthead said: You don't need to make comparisons with China, that's a bit extreme, and the Chinese are discovering that their approach is total dogshit which could seriously damage their economy ("We'll loan money to all these poor countries the nasty west won't support!" "Great idea! By the way, all these poor countries the west won't support can't afford to pay us back. They say sorry about that, kthxbye,"), both in terms of internal development and external development. But it's true that Britain does seem less nimble an economy even compared to EU countries, which are not exactly not in love with bureaucracy and red tape. Some of that is down to the size of the country versus its population: we're a small country with a massive population and that severely complicates where we can build things*. The likes of Norway and Sweden are fucking massive countries with comparatively tiny populations, which gives them a huge amount of flexibility. Even France, with a comparable population, has twice as much land to work with; Germany and Italy do have more limitations comparable to ours. *From my days in the Department of Transport, a daily occurrence was someone grumbling, "Why can't we build railways that work like in France and Germany?" and us coming up with some variation of, "Well, we could deploy ten thousand B-17s and Lancasters to renovate the UK transport network from scratch, but that might be controversial." I'm breaking my fortnight rule it seems. So long as the loans are denoted in RMB then the only country the loans harm is the borrower. RMB is the only infinite resource China has, and unlike banks that have to make profits from loans and can't use loans for the purposes of influence and control a country can very much lend you it's own currency with an expectation that it may never gets repaid, unless the borrower gets out of line, because making money was never the point of the lending. Just like people should never have believed the lie that govts are like households, they should also stop thinking of govts like they are commercial banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts