>>2533 Point being when the motorways were built it was quite simple to network the entire country, yet now for even just a single train line or relatively small project like the M6 toll it takes years of planning battles, and compensation to every homeowner it passes within miles of.
We should just plough through orphanages and graveyards instantly if need be. Hell, I'd drive the bulldozer through for free if I can drink on the job.
What could we do to promote business in the north, aside form bulldozing half of it? I was thinking of HS2 earlier and thought all it would do is expand London's commuter belt.
Wrong. It is absolutely the other way around. London is MASSIVELY subsidised. If not for the drain on the rest of the country London would be 99% shithole.
Actually there are plans to change this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23587557 "A more realistic option would be to upgrade the A1 to motorway all the way along, Watters says. The most pressing need for improvement is the section north of Newcastle serving the east coast of Scotland, he says. It is currently a mix of single and dual carriageway. Another eastern option is taking the A14, which runs from Felixstowe to the M6, and turning that into motorway, says Jack Semple, policy director at the Road Hauliers Association. Then there's the A12 from Brentwood to Suffolk."
But apparently the cost would run into the billions for a full widening scheme.
How did we ever manage to build the motorways and the railways in the first place I wonder?
>>2543 Are you serious? If taxes from London stayed in London for just one tax year, your shithole of a town would look like Dresden after the fire bombings. I mean, just look at how dumb you are. What shit school did you go to? Jesus.
>How did we ever manage to build the motorways and the railways in the first place I wonder?
I genuinely wonder this sometimes. The railways I can understand, because almost all of them were built pre-1900, and so the government just granted an edict and compulsory purchase order. They also weren't built to anything like the standard they're now maintained, which is a hidden cost that we have to take into account: i.e. that they've been upgraded over time, whereas a new line would be built to that high standard straight away, and so incurs all of the costs at the same time.
With the motorways, I really couldn't tell you. I assumed by the 50s and 60s it would've been much harder for the government to do what it wants with regards to this sort of thing, but maybe all these regulations came in later on.
>>2548 >The railways I can understand, because almost all of them were built pre-1900, and so the government just granted an edict and compulsory purchase order.
This is the main thing with the railways, they just didn't give a fuck what they built over and private property rights were far weaker. The village where my family comes from had a prehistoric slate stone avenue apparently on par with anything else in the world and it just got bulldozed for the railway. Thankfully we've moved on from then, even tory cunts are getting cold feet over hs2. I really don't understand how some people can be so demented that they genuinely seem to want us to be more like china/us in the C19th and just fuck everything over in pursuit of profit.
Because in the long-run we all profit. It's fine to have property rights, but when it means building infrastructure is 10 times more expensive and takes 5 times as long to build it starts to get a bit grating.
Even reopening old railway lines takes years - look at the Borders railway in Scotland. Most of it's been (re)built through farmers' fields, yet the compulsory purchases still took years, even with very little inconvenience to those involved.
Imagine the state the country would be in if the railways and motorways had never been built due to masses of red tape.
>>2548 They were built much the same way are the railways. You must understand, the post-war period was probably the government at its most powerful since Henry the 8th and the glow of postwar rebirth allowed the government to get away with a lot of stuff. Keynes ruled supreme too.
The motorways themselves were paid for with debt but at least in those days there was enough wealth in the country and enough growth that we could conceivably pay it off.
>>2534 because there aren't any large towns between Harrogate and Middlesbrough so between that section which accounts for most of the route there wouldn't be enough traffic to warrant a motorway a dual carriageway would suffice.
>>2531 Two of your proposed motorways cross through national parks (peak district and the new forest) so there unlikely to be built.
Plus what's with the Newmarket-Cambridge-Huntingdon-Kettering motorway is there really enough traffic across the whole route to warrant a motorway. Could do with upgrading parts of the A14 though, they always go on about it on Look East and there probably is a good deal traffic on the Cambridge-Huntingdon section but the rest I doubt theres enough for a motorway.
I was thinking about this the other day. The road layout in this country is really pretty good compared to lots of places.
I think the motorways are getting a bit decrepit though. There are some brilliant sections of "motorway" in Leeds and Manchester (basically the city centre ring road of each city) that feel like travelling back in time to drive through the 1970s.
I think we need a new stage in transport infrastructure. We should build a giant elevated motorway (four lanes, super flat tarmac and no speed limits) and high-speed magnetic levitation rail line that runs between London and Edinburgh like a giant infrastructural spinal column, with nerves splitting off along the length to get to major cities.
Fuck the cunts who whine about the environment or scenery, you can fucking sit and enjoy your beautiful natural landscapes all you like when the country is bankrupt and irrelevant.
As someone who probably qualifies as one of the cunts you describe, I would be extremely happy to see development in our transport infrastructure, I'd just be suggesting that it go toward rail rather than roads.
>>2565 There's no precedent for elevated highways in this country, and aside from rush hour problems in some areas there is not a huge problem.
It would make sense to build a highway in and out of cities though to connect to ring roads.
The cost is still gargantuan however, mainly due to the quantities of concrete involved.
Maglev trains aren't everything they're cracked up to be though, too expensive and unreliable. Elon Musks hyperloop proposal is promising though: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/home/blog/in-the-loop/1016990.article A spinal column approach to a main line isn't necessarily a great idea, circular systems are more effective and reliable. Better to have a figure of 8 joining London, Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, and with a single line to Edinburgh. There would also need to be simultaneous heavy investment into refocusing existing lines onto local commuter lines and access to outlying cities like Cardiff and Norwich.
We do need extra road capacity, or need to take people off the roads. I think I read something the other day road use has increased 70% whilst capacity has increased only 10% since 1997? Something like that. Anyway I suppose the reality is we don't know the future of private transport. I would say we need stronger links between the big cities via rail though.
The real problem with this sort of thing is property rights. Fucked us good.
