 | |||
| Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne (Getty Images) |
The first article reports Edmund King of the AA as saying that "infrastructure investments such a the new high-speed rail link would have "minimal" effect on future UK road traffic increases (or rail congestion, I would add). Meanwhile, congestion in the United States, which has embraced the car more enthusiastically than perhaps anywhere else in the world, is forecast to pay a higher price for congestion than perhaps any other country by 2050.
Although the precise aims of the proposed HS2 remain unclear, it would according to the second article, "provide a lifeline for the construction industry". Indeed, this seems to be the main purpose of the project which is still some way from having all the necessary development consents, although the state-owned company behind it has already "spent £3 billion since it was set up by government in 2012". The total cost of HS2, including trains, is estimated to be in region of £50 million, "making it one of the most expensive railway projects in the world".
Finally, the FT reports that "four river crossings should be built between east London and Kent" at an "estimated" cost of £3-7 billion according to the Centre for London think-tank. Presumably these are also lifelines for the construction industry, as again the precise rationale for them is unclear. I speak as someone who attended two major planning inquiries into an East London River Crossing and then a Thames Gateway Bridge between 1985-6 and 2005-6 respectively.
The UK currently likes to flaunt its economic superiority to France, yet the government seems intent on pursuing precisely the same "grand projet" in the transport and energy sectors which do not seem to have served the French very well. Having been involved in English transport planning for nearly thirty years, much of what I now see is regressive, rather like reality television.
No comments:
Post a Comment