YOUR local economists, Professor Fabien Postel-Vinay of University of Bristol and Professors Paul Dunne and Peter Howells of the University of the West of England dented their universities' reputation for intellectual rigour by signing a letter in support of the High Speed Rail proposal, HS2, (Financial Times Jan 6). The letter claimed that HS2 will "support the creation of up to one million jobs". In fact, the report they quote has those jobs being created by 2020 as part of various extensive regeneration proposals. This is some six years before the line is scheduled to open.
The academics observe that by international comparison the World Economic Forum (WEF) has ranked the UK as 28th for "quality of overall infrastructure" and 19th for our "railroads". Even by the rationale of their own argument, this rather implies that, overall, even the WEF does not perceive the HS2 as our first infrastructure priority. There is a consensus that good transport infrastructure is important for economic development. There are good arguments in favour of stimulating the economy to invest now in good transport projects. But HS2 is not a good transport project.
The scheme is intended to cost £32,000,000,000 at 2009 prices and most such schemes go well over budget. That is £51 million from every parliamentary constituency in the UK.
Those of us who live close to the proposed line have been dismissed as NIMBYs, but at least we have taken the time to study the Department of Transport's business, economic and engineering proposals in detail. The House of Commons Transport Select Committee while supportive of the principle of good quality high-speed rail, they found fundamental flaws in these particular HS2 plans. HS2 passenger demand estimates are exaggerated. Your readers may wish to ask their MP to do something better with your readers' money.
Dr Paul Thornton
Kenilworth, Warwickshire
No comments:
Post a Comment