Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
If you don't see how halving the time it takes to get from London to Manchesteer is going to benefit the economy, how are you expecting any benefits to accrue from the mere shaving of journey times you get from widening or straightening stretches of road or existing rail?
Radical improvement is only going to come from doing something radically different. Back in the early 19th century, the canal companies did all in their power to prevent the newfangled railways from being built. If they had, we might still all be employed as farmhands and market stall keepers, watching small quantities of Wedgwood china occasionally floating past our cottage windows. Thankfully they failed and as a result, Britain led the industrial revolution for another century.
History has shown time and time again that allowing something to be done faster and more efficiently results in economic benefit. From canals to rail to paved road, the internal combustion engine and the computer, all of it has resulted in growth. HS2 will be the same. Although sadly the British capacity for moaning about it will also be the same. However, I'm confident our grandchildren will find the idea of there not being a high speed rail network as odd as we would find the idea of there being no motorways.
|
I didn't say it'd give no benefit merely pointed out that
unless it's heavily subsidised the benefits derived from it will be mitigated. I feel that more benefit would be derived from spreading improvements over a wider area. I studied history a very long time ago so may be wrong but IIRC when the railways and canals were being built the economy was expanding rapidly and there was the demand and the finances. They were not funded by central govt. but by private companies and wealthy industrialists. Moreover there were no viable alternatives then and now there are in the form of road and air travel. If a private company wants to finance, build and run HS2 and it's not going to wind up yet another long term burden on the taxpayer that's fine by me but given the history of our railways since Beeching, I feel it will become just that if it's to generate any significant growth. I'm not against rail but and agree we need better infrastructure but just think that we'd get more 'bang for the buck' in terms of growth from other measures (including rail) which could be implemented far quicker and over a far wider area than HS2 will ever be.
I suppose one means of estimating its risks and long term benefits v. costs to UK PLC would be to compare those same effects of Eurotunnel on our economy. It'd be interesting to know what they've been since it's been up and running.