In the light of recent posts, below, I open this thread. It echoes a previous thread ( https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-is-hs2-treated-so-differently-by-some-enthusiasts.143106/ )
A project of such polarisation, never mind cost, HS2 looks set to forever drive itself through enthusiasts, and the wider public, with neither side giving an inch to their argument. So where do we go? Constant argument? Any kind of agreement?
More importantly, just why is the so decisive? How has a rail project caused such heated debate?
A project of such polarisation, never mind cost, HS2 looks set to forever drive itself through enthusiasts, and the wider public, with neither side giving an inch to their argument. So where do we go? Constant argument? Any kind of agreement?
More importantly, just why is the so decisive? How has a rail project caused such heated debate?
I would guess that it boils down to three things for those who oppose it.
First, beecause the main destination appears to be London and given the perceived lack of rail spend in the North (or southwest or any other region) means those in the North feel that this is London getting the spending yet again.
Second, those who live in the Southeast who are faced by overcrowd trains then look at the new line going nowhere near them and think that's not going to help them.
Finally, there's those who don't want the money spent. Whether that's the likes of the Taxpayer's Alliance who appear that they don't want any money spent, or those who think that it should be spent elsewhere (i.e. on the NHS or on their pet rail project). As such will oppose HS2.
Then on the other side there's a number of reasons why people think that's is a good project. They'll be some who just want more spent on rail and so think that's a good thing. They'll be those who think that it will benefit them and so support it. There'll be those who see that there's a lot of investment in the North and so see it as a way of the bring a rebalancing of rail spend from the South. Then there's probably about 200 other reasons why they support it.
HS2 proponents on here might want to reconsider some of their arguments, in light of recent experience with the DfT, and things which have in fact happened over the past 12 months:-
1. 'Of course it won't be cancelled half way through'
2. 'Of course they wouldn't build infrastructure and then not use it for the promised service's
3. 'Of course they wouldn't commit political suicide by reneging on promises of investment outside the south east'.
Consideration might also be given to whether non-London residents are going to be persuaded by an argument that they should support HS2 because it will allow them to save 10 minutes on their journeys, just so long as they don't mind going into London and coming out again (presumably, paying a hefty surcharge for doing so for much of the working day).
It might also be questioned whether one of the reasons the topic is so divisive is the clash between the almost cultish fervour some of its supporters display (who all seem to live in places which will be served by HS2), and the deep cynicism of many opponents, itself a natural result of the relentless widening of the gap between the south east and everywhere else these last few decades.
I say all this as someone who supports a new north-south railway in principle, but who does not agree that every aspect of HS2 as planned is sensible.