DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Economists are taught that past investment is irrelevant when deciding policy (or something like that.) If you are in a hole, stop digging. So the recent sea wall expenditure isn't really relevant.
That's true: Something that's a sunk cost should be irrelevant to any business case. However, I'm guessing that all that investment that's already been spent is likely to make it easier/cheaper to continue maintaining the sea wall going forward, and that is important to any business case. Also, the fact that all that money has been spent is important in purely political terms: After spending all that money, it would look politically awful if the route were then closed.
However there is a clear public transport need along that bit of the coast, and there is also a need to improve the resilience of the west of England services, so I would say maintain the first and reopen the LSWR main line.
Agreed.