Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Osem, you're cherry-picking the evidence you want to accept and declaring it "more realistic" because it tallies with what you have already decided is going to be the fate of HS2 
Incidentally, part of the problem these things cost so much more, mile for mile, in this country, is because of the Nimbys and the nay-sayers who insist on objecting their way to the highest court in the land before accepting the democratic right of an elected government to take strategic decisions about the infrastructure of the country.
This decision has been taken by a government that, rarely for the UK, represents a very large majority of those who voted in the last general election. Furthermore, Labour is broadly supportive of HS2, having initiated the thing in the first place. They really should now be allowed to get on and build it. |
Not really, I've come late to this debate because I'm not inherently for or against high speed rail as I've made clear. I simply searched for recent high speed links and found the Dutch example. Highlighting it's problems is no more cherry picking than citing French infrastructure built years ago in a very different financial climate, under very different planning laws and supported by successive governments totally committed to such projects.
Hoping they'll get on a build it now is fine but it overlooks the reality that our planning laws make that very difficult and add greatly to the timescale and therefore the cost. If we could get this thing built in the same way the French have done, the benefits v. costs would be far better IMHO but we're not in France and I can see this thing dragging on and on with the costs mushrooming. A sad but realistic assessment IMHO.
Time, as they say, will tell and I just hope that, if it's going to happen, it's done well and lives up to its supporters hopes and expectations. To that extent I hope I'm wrong.