I would prefer to link to The Economist's site for this letter to the editor, but the site is too finicky for letters prior to the current print edition, so here are some excerpts:
SIR – The multi-billion pound High Speed Two rail line to link London, Birmingham and the north of England is based on a number of assumptions. The first is that, 20 years from now, businessmen will continue to travel regularly to appointments rather than make their presentations through the means provided by new technology…
A further assumption, that high speed rail is green, is open to question when the carbon costs of construction and very high operating speeds are taken into account.
The scheme's adocates speak of boosting national and regional economic regeneration, but the findings of Terry Gourvish, a rail expert at the London School of Economics, could fairly be described as equivocal.
And the conclusion:
High Speed Two appeals to politicians because it is glitzy and because they enjoy forays to Brussels and Strasbourg on its forerunner, High Speed One. It is a project, however, which will consume Britain's transport budget for the benefit of a few, rather than the many. Hard pressed rail and road users deserve better.
Marilyn Fletcher
Great Missenden,
Buckinghamshire
Well Marilyn, I don't think Caltrain or 101 drivers could have said it any better. A boondoggle is a boondoggle regardless of whether it is in Brussels, Birmingham or Burlingame!


Leave a Reply