Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Economies in areas away from HS2 could suffer big losses.

The government has been accused of attempting to suppress the drawbacks of its flagship transport project after previously unseen research revealed cities across the UK could lose up to £220m each as a result of HS2. The KPMG study, commissioned by the government, predicted more than 50 areas would be worse off as a result of the high-speed rail project – including Bristol, Cambridge and Aberdeen.

Read article in The Guardian.

Kommentarer

Anonymous sa…
According to the report, post HS2 Bristol will be £101 million worse off, however before HS2 Bristol will be electrified and have new faster, higher capacity trains (OK, some don't like them, but that's a different matter) which has not been given a financial figure to it. As such it may well be that HS2 puts a bit of a dent in Bristol's economy, but possibly only about as much as the electrification of the GWML brings. Therefore without counting all the benefits/losses of all the rail projects scheduled between now and HS2 opening there is no way of being able to compare the true picture. Also that doesn't take into account any further rail schemes whilst HS2 is being built.

Also it should be noted that the top 4 cities listed (Aberdeen (£220m), Cambridge (£127m), Bristol (£101m), and southern Essex (£151m)) have a loss of £0.6bn, whilst just the West Midlands sees an increase of £1.5bn. Meaning as a whole the UK economy is a lot better off. It should also be noted that these 4 areas would probably manage fairly well and although £0.6bn sounds a lot; in comparison to the £1,509bn which is the UK GDP it is just 0.04%. In reality any negative change made by HS2 is likely to be no more than a rounding error.
28 oktober 2013 kl. 22:13
Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

The Zombie Train that refuses to die

The Guardian has published a couple more articles against HS2, one by specialist rail commentator Christian Wolmar, and another today by journalist Simon Jenkins. The main arguments in favour will doubtless be wheeled out by the commentators: the need for capacity and the disruption caused by upgrading existing routes. HST itself will severely disrupt services to Euston during the construction period. Capacity can be increased at a fraction of the cost by a variety of measures, provided that it is accepted that the additional traffic will run at existing speeds. It is not generally known that the Midland main line is, or was, four track all the way from London to Trent Junction, between Nottingham and Derby. This is because the additional tracks are separate, having been added for coal trains which trundled down to Brent sidings, on the edge of London, from a collection point at Toton in Nottinghamshire, where the Midland Railway build a huge marshalling yard. Beyond Derby, the main l...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer