The central economic proposition of high-speed rail is that by improving transport links between major conurbations, it can stimulate economic growth, freeing up commuting time for more useful work and linking new markets. The central economic problem is that the sums do not add up...
Even the commuting case is weak, since the savings in time are so small that they largely mean more time in bed and less time to play with phone apps for the minority using trains, rather than a major stimulus to productivity.
The whole piece is well worth reading as a reminder of a particular political reality.
If the political cost of binning bad schemes is very high, it is because they have chosen to make it so. They could instead be angrily challenging the Government to help reduce the appalling cost of these schemes through planning reforms, stimulating competition and the abolition of various sock-puppet quangos that solely exist to add cost to any decision to build a network.
Of course with HS2 we also see the bureaucratic reality of major government schemes. Bureaucrats often do their bit to ensure that the political cost of binning bad schemes is very high. It's what they do.
4 comments:
The fallacy of sunk costs is well-known in economics, and probably applies here. But there is also the sunk political cost. Boris has done a complete U-turn over Owen Paterson and lobbying, and has zig-zagged over responses to Covid. He knows he would look like a complete fool if he gave up on something like HS2.
Shareholders don't mind if people looking after their money change direction; whatever brings in the dividends is OK. But politicians are constantly striving to appear consistent, far-sighted, resolute, and all the things that prevent them from admitting mistakes. So why do they make the mistakes in the first place? My guess is that they rush to produce policies they think are vote-winners before they can get an objective assessment under way.
Sam - yes they do rush to produce vote-winning policies. They also like to attach themselves to grand policies initiated by previous administrations. There are schemes of incremental improvements as alternatives to HS2, but incremental improvements don't attract headlines.
HS2 was foisted upon us by the EUSSR, upon whom it was foisted by the UN. It was part of an intended network of railway lines spanning the Asian continent, including the western peninsula known as Yurp. To enable rewilding of vast swathes of countryside, from the Iberian peninsula to the Balkans and beyond, it is imperative that people be removed from these lands. Once removed it is intended that they will be "packed and stacked" in crowded cities alongside these railway lines. It's all in Agenda 2020, or some other even more adventurous Agenda.
Andy - and that is a good enough reason to dump it.
Post a Comment