The irony is that HS2 is not modern. What seemed futuristic in the Nineties seems far less so now, when the economy is evolving in ways that rapidly diminish the premium placed on high-speed rail travel. Look abroad, and it’s falling apart everywhere. A high-speed service between Lisbon and Madrid was abandoned last year. A bullet train connecting the Netherlands and Belgium lasted two months before it was abandoned earlier this year, due to technical chaos. The Los Angeles to San Francisco project is becoming a scandal: expected ticket prices have been increased by 50 per cent and anticipated passenger numbers have halved. All these joys are awaiting Britain, should we be foolish enough to proceed.
It has been my experience that people who claim to speak for everyone usually are actually speaking for a small but vocal minority. The conservative resistance to change is usually overwritten by history.
“There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.”
Ken Olsen, co-founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
“I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year.”
Editor in charge of business books, Prentice Hall, 1957
And what did the Tom Watson’s (IBM) or the Steve Jobs or Bill Gates of the world have to say about the computer technology? Are we to assume that you performed an exhaustive research of what other knowledgeable persons said? Or have you just cherry picked a few quotes to buttress whatever argument you are making? And in effect did what you just accused the original poster of doing.
" I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. "
Thomas Watson IBM
He was from my home town.
My uncle has a Bundy time clock hanging on his wall. Bundy, being one of the companies that merged into the newly formed International Business Machines.
The point that I was making was that the author in the news article was claiming that NOBODY wants the HSR in England. I doubt that he has asked EVERYBODY.
Irrespective of what probably was a one-off statement, perhaps taken out of context, Watson went on to lead arguably the most successful computer company in the world. Moreover, you left out Jobs, Gates, and the hundreds if not thousands of others who were prescient enough to see the role computers would eventually play in the world. Not that this has anything to do with high speed rail in GB.
Having re-read the original post, as well as the supporting article, I don’t see any comments about no one wants high speed rail in the UK. This is the only statement that I could find that reflects the author’s views of public opinion: Never mind the public; all this doesn’t appear to be convincing even the businessmen it is aimed at. Polls show they are rapidly turning against the idea, seeing it as a gargantuan waste of money.
The author is correct regarding the escalating cost of the California High Speed Rail Project and its likely impact on ticket prices. The project was originally estimated to cost approximately $33 billion before financing. The original estimate mushroomed to nearly $98 billion before someone did a project sanity check
I want my Bristol Brabazon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhbMZbh_O0
That would be travel in a civilized style.
Sam1 does not GET humor or irony. It is wasted on her.
“It has been my experience that people who claim to speak for everyone usually are actually speaking for a small but vocal minority. The conservative resistance to change is usually overwritten by history.”
Where is the humor or irony in this statement. As noted in a subsequent post, the author of the referenced article did not even hint that he was speaking for everyone. Moreover, the reference to conservative resistance to change is a not very subtle political statement, which is inappropriate
Perhaps you should re-read the entire thread. And the attach
Britain is a small country that already has fairly decent rail passenger service. I have wondered how much additional benefit even faster speed would give them. So I can see why folks are asking the cost vs benefit questions there. Additionally I thought Britain pays for rail infrastructure while leasing or selling the routes to private operators? Not the same model we use over here.
California I think needs HSR as much as Texas does…regardless of the cost. Building an additional freeway between SFO and LA would cost a LOT more in construction costs and maintence than a HSR line. Airport expansion at LAX and SFO not a cheap proposition either although I would argue it needs to happen in both locations even with HSR. So comparitively speaking HSR might be a wiser choice price wise in California vs alternative modes.
The general public normally ‘sees the need’ for something 20 years after it should have already been built and operating.
HSR is no different.
East of the Mississippi the Interstate system is becoming traffic choked. Many airports are operating at the maximum capacity, both on runway utilization and terminal gates. There needs to be an additional form of high speed reliable transportation to handle the ever increasing population. The same model applies to the Pacific coast. The area between the Mississippi and the the Pacific coast - not so much.
The UK Daily Telegraph is the equivalent of your Fox News: “According to a MORI survey conducted in 2005, 74% of Telegraph readers intended to support the Conservative Party in the coming elections.”
High Speed is only part of the equation in Britain. Passenger traffic has doubled since 1995 - HS2 not only provides a high speed option but almost more importantly allows for a significant capacity expansion. There is simply no more room on the conventional West Coast main line for more trains. When you run intercity trains at the rate they do (example London-Birmingham every 20 minutes both directions, London Glasgow every 40 minutes), plus regionals, cross border and commuters the railroad gets busy.
The 80 billion UKP number is one created by opponents who added in some parts of the CrossRail project in London, a Nottingham light rail project, and a fictional HS2 extension to Liverpool.
Thank you for that important reason for higher speed trains. Naysayers of HSR criticize it as “speed for speed’s sake” and “just keeping up with other countries.” But they miss an important point. It allows an existing RoW to have greater capacity along with becoming a time-competitive choice over air and road in shorter corridors.
Mississippi used to be a convenient divider, but traffic congestion seems to creep west. I-80 in Iowa is getting congested in significant parts, so the line should be more along the Missouri River so that Iowa, Omaha/Lincoln in Nebraska, then Kansas City/Missouri are included. Then there’s Arkansas, and not to forget Texas, which has traffic issues between its metro areas. Functioning long distance and regional rail systems needed in all those places.
There’s a ‘sweet spot’ for high-speed rail in terms of distance. Too short and the time saving is negligible. Too far and (short of a futuristic solution like that proposed by Elon Musk) it can’t compete with air travel.
So HSR is well suited to countries like France and Spain where major population centres are a few hundred miles apart, with little in between. The UK is too densely populated, and even the proposed London-Birmingham route (only 100 miles) bypasses several significant cities, while offering time savings of less than 15 minutes (Britain already has an extensive network of 125 mph rail services).
When the new route (HS2) was proposed, it was argued that the time savings would justify the cost. It was soon pointed out that the mobile phone means that time spent on rail journeys is no longer unproductive for business travellers. So the argument was switched to one of “we need new capacity, so it might as well be high speed”. But the only people who think the current lines are full are consultants hired by the government to prove that very point.
The politicians have invested too much ego into this project for it to be killed now, so it will probably go ahead. But it will be a very bad deal for the UK.
I haven’t ridden that line in recent years. I have ridden the East Coast Mainline (London to Edinburgh and points in between) and its trains (mostly every 30 minutes) are packed. It needs greater speed and thus capacity.
I think HS2 isn’t so much a bad idea, but the money would be better spent undoing some of Dr. Beeching’s damage which is already happening in some small ways such as Network Rail serving the stations on the Swanage Railway as of 2015. Not to mention, the additional space needed at Euston will require the demolishing of The Bree Louise, a very fine pub!
I drive to Dallas from the Austin area two or three times a month. Over the past six years I have been stuck in a traffic jam once. A tractor trailer jackknifed on I-35 near Italy, Texas. Having lived in Dallas for 35 years, I know enough to avoid the mix master near downtown. If I stayed on I-35, which runs into the downtown mix master, especially during rush hours, I would have found myself mired in a very slow moving traffic.
I drive to Fort Myers, FL, twice a year. Have been doing it for 12 years. On two occasions I ran into a traffic mess. Both of them were caused by wrecks. One was on I-10 outside of Mobile, and the other was on I-75 north of Fort Myers. Otherwise, between the cities, at least in my part of the country, I zip right along.
Texas major cities have serious traffic issues, but they are caused primarily by commuters. Between the cities it is usually smooth sailing. Having said that, the highways of Texas are more crowded than they were 20 years ago. The reason, for the most part, is that the state’s population has more than doubled.
The state, as well as some private investors, have been building new roadways or expanding existing ones to meet the state’s transportation needs. Also, Texas is is relying more on toll roads to meet the needs of its motorists.
My experiences, like those cited above, are anecdotal. I would like to see some verifiable statistics showing that the roadways are as crowded as some claim.
Your traveling largely on liesure vs business. Try the life of a traveling business consultant for once and you’ll find yourself in those rush hours a LOT more than you want to be due to client requirements that you attend specific meetings. I am on a IBM project now and the first half I got IBM to pay for a chauffered car because there is no way I was goin
What makes you think that highways are mired in “road construction” (i.e., maintenance of the pavement) whereas trains do not have similar levels of delays from the necessary track maintenance?