Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Railway Man is correct when he states that there are many intangibles associated with high speed rail, or any transport project, that cannot be quantified.  Moreover, he is correct to say that the tangibles, i.e. technical, costs, revenues, etc. can only be estimated.  Wise planners, as a matter of fact, don't project a single outcome.  They use scenario analysis to project three or four likely outcomes. Any capital project (public or private) must be funded, as is true for its operations.    Someone has to pick-up the tab.  If the users don't pay for it, then the non-users (taxpayers in the case of public projects), almost always within the hoist country, have to pick-up the difference.  Given this dynamic, planners should make sure that they are designing the most practicable outcome, i.e. usability, affordability, etc.  In most instances I have not seen a compelling argument for high speed rail. Unfortunately, in public projects political decisions oftentimes trump commercial decisions, and outcome decisions are made for the wrong reasons, with a significant liability for present and future taxpayers.  This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together. Does the public want high speed rail, or is it the vested interests, e.g. construction companies, equipment builders, etc., that have convinced the politicians that the public wants it.?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag