The arguement shouldn't be this or this, the arguement should be this and this, as pleasant as Dawlish is that line would not be substainable in a future climate espically if sea levels were to rise.
Wales second city should have electrification (Not biased as I live in Swansea) but the fact it is easier to change the direct route to Swansea to electirification than it is both Cardiff routes surely suggests a move to electrification in fact all it needs is the money from Brigend to Cardiff as our money [minus a bit]
and assembly will cover the rest (As far as I am aware).
Anyhow off to buy some rail tickets...
I don't know if you meant as usually people gang up on me on this board but you've made the point. HS2 does not benefit everyone.
You'll forgive me if I don't take a pressure group run exclusively by city financiers for city financiers seriously.
I'll forgive you. I guess you're not talking about the TPA though? Can't be. I decided to have a look just in case you might have been. Chairman, Andrew Allum = Management Consultant, Chief Executive, Matthew Elliott = Author and Civil Servant, Co-Founder, Florence Heath = geologist, Director, Matthew Sinclair = Economics and Economic History graduate, full time TPA employee.... I can't be bothered to read the rest of the profiles but I think it's plain to see they aren't all "City Financiers" so that's obviously a claim not based on fact and does not really warrant any further attention. According to the Guardian (aka the bible) it is "arguably the most influential pressure group in the country"
And by the way, they have offices in London and Birmingham. If they wanted to unduly influence the political climate for their own personal gain (as is the insinuation) wouldn't they be arguing in favour of it to save themselves a bit of time?
I have read a little more of the TPA article and there is a very good point made in the first paragraph. The money spent on HS2 is not spent twice. It is spent once invested in the hardware and work required to build the railway. It is not really an 'investment' as it is not being spent to make more money. At the end of the day it is simply a means of getting from one place to another. While travelling there are very few people who are actually productive so the business of travelling does not become more productive if it is carried out at a higher speed on a newer train. You might argue one would get there quicker so productive activities may recommence sooner as a result but it's not enough of a saving to justify the cost.
I'm not against railways... I just tend to agree with the people who can see this thing for what it really is. It's a vanity project. There are other ways of spending the money which would create far more jobs. If we have 17-bn spare then maybe chuck half of it into building up and improving the rail network and use the rest of it for something more worthwhile. Like drinks and titties parties.
If it were a private company spending its own money which it intended to recover through sale of tickets I'd be more inclined to support it.