[olduser]

Another road scheme.
Like all such schemes, there is a list of theoretical benefits carefully crafted in favour of the development. Considering building or upgrading roads once done can never be undone, shouldn't residents in the area get the major say?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lw4n2w7vo

[Rolebama]

First off, every road development in the country is under-quoted for end cost, and, as for the prediction as to how much it will save, this figure is completely theoretical.
All these developments seem to do is attract more vehicles, and create more congestion.

[Drivingforfun]

There's a big conflict of interest as well: cutting journey times is beneficial to all but it's obviously not in the government's interest to cut down on overall fuel burned

[olduser]

To a degree the fuel economies are counterbalanced by the increase in vehicle population triggered by the new/improved road.

As to initial cost estimates, if the road is wanted at ministry level it will be for political reasons, so the estimates will be very low, and the benefits will be calculated very high, to ensure the job is approved.
Add to that, the UK's geology can have big changes over short distances, thrown in a Rare Species survey, all add to making costs difficult to predict, the true final cost can only be known when the job is finished.

[Rolebama]

@olduser There have been thousands of FOI requests made about Govt spending. Almost all of them are answered with: We do not yet have the full information to answer this. Or a variation thereof.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

@olduser There have been thousands of FOI requests made about Govt spending. Almost all of them are answered with: We do not yet have the full information to answer this. Or a variation thereof.

I recently watched a government committee on TV (BBC Parliament) looking into the costs of HS2, I found it remarkably like watching an episode of Yes Minister at it's best.
It reminded me of the Post Office Horizon enquiry - Senior managers and directors able to say things like, I would not know that it's below my pay grade, I did not ask because it's below my pay grade.

In the committee, of course no one asked the obvious question, what would be the effect on cost if we built a normal railway? I read somewhere it would reduce the cost by about one third though I have not been able to confirm that it but appears to be plausible.
Railways like to avoid bends but they can and do to avoid difficult (expensive) terrain, high speed rail needs to go straight regardless of cost.

The justification for highspeed, a few minutes saved per journey, on an Island that is only 600 miles long is ridiculous in this age of easy communication.

[Rolebama]

I read an article some years ago about the then Prime Minister calling for feasibility studies into a high speed rail system, and another runway. It was a matter of prestige, as we were falling behind Europe. Paris had more runways than London! Hence five minutes later Heathrow, Luton, Gatwick, and now Stansted all have London in their titles/names. Regardless of how far they actually are from London.

[olduser]

Again from the BBC news web site;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2l8kq52y8o

If I remember correctly, Gordon Brown lobed HS2 into the melting pot at the end of his time in government, in an effort to win votes because all the advise was they would loose the upcoming election.
I would guess if they got back in power the intention would have been to 'discover' there were a thousand and one reasons, newly discovered, why we should not go ahead.
But the other lot got in, and what they saw was loads a money for their mates so lets do it, and anyway, it might put the great back into Great Britain!