£44 billion High Speed Rail aka The Great Train Robbery.

Everyone’s got his or her opinion on the proposed high-speed rail. Or maybe not.

"It seems to me a slightly unimaginative way to improve a train journey is to make it shorter.

“Employ all of the top male and female supermodels pay them to walk the length of the train handing out free Chateau Petrus for the entire duration of the journey. You would still have money left over and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down. "
- Rory Sutherland (IPA President and Vice-Chairman of Ogilvy Group)

Maybe not an exact quote from Rory but you can see what he's getting at, it is a colossal expenditure of money. You could give everyone in Britain (62,218,761 people) £700 with £44 billion. Let Google do the math by clicking the link http://tinyurl.com/7nseuht .

After seeing this in terms you can get your head around you really can start to see why it’s seen as a waste of money. To shave off about 45 minutes of a journey for £44 billion seems ridiculous. 

After thinking about this wastage I realised I was framing the issue and convinced myself by putting it in these terms. (More on framing here http://tinyurl.com/37wokk )


So what are the real crooks of the matter?

The train will even out the population in the country. In terms of social status and pay. By having the line it will no doubt encourage people from the Midlands to go to London and vice versa. Even if it’s not that much faster the perception of it being much easier/faster will be set.

Therefore individuals who can't see any future for themselves (Harking back, the riots of last year) won’t feel so trapped. On the flip side of this all the rich businesses will move to the West Midlands because 1. It’s cheaper and 2. it won’t be much of a hassle to get around anymore.

House prices will even out throughout the country; prices in London are on the rise even though house prices elsewhere are falling, so it’s the government’s way to make the poor richer and the rich richer.

It's no doubt a hassle for the people that have to move and have their houses demolished but they will be getting far more money for what their property is worth. Although it's not all about money.

Finally £44 billion is a lot of money for you and me right? But for the government it’s really not that much. This sounds like madness but when we consider how much the government spends on the military every year it seems like a drop in the bucket overall.

Id rather the government be spending the money on high-speed rail than on weapons to kill people, not that it was ever a toss up between those two things anyway.

and for the people saying it's ruining our countryside, a great Vulcan once said "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - Spock 

It's a very complex and hypothetical debate obviously, because there's a fair bit of guesswork and projectioning but overall I'm indifferent. Thoughts?

END