4 ms·
I could well be wrong but this was never one of the touted benefits of HS2 when it was being (mis?)sold to the British public, which makes me very suspicious.
by reallydontask 6y ago
I could well be wrong but this was never one of the touted benefits of HS2 when it was being (mis?)sold to the British public, which makes me very suspicious.
Furthermore, I would guess that the post coronavirus emphasis on remote work would make it less important, only time will tell.
- gsnedders 6y ago> I could well be wrong but this was never one of the touted benefits of HS2 when it was being (mis?)sold to the British public, which makes me very suspicious. At least https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16485263 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16485263 talks about capacity a fair bit? > Furthermore, I would guess that the post coronavirus emphasis on remote work would make it less important, only time will tell. It's worthwhile remembering that number of people heading into cities has been rising year-over-year for a long time. Even if we see a 25% decrease in travel, any freed up rail capacity would likely just be taken up by people moving from road to rail. And with a larger decrease, while rail might drop away from being at capacity for a few years it's highly likely to increase again in future.
- wastedhours 6y agoThe capacity easing was always the main reason pushed to those in the know, it was easier to sell to the public based on some new top line figures though, so that's the reason that narrative was used. HS2 is almost all about easing local commuter routes.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago> I could well be wrong but this was never one of the touted benefits of HS2 when it was being (mis?)sold to the British public, which makes me very suspicious. HS2's PR has been, frankly, awful. Hell, its name has been its biggest failure. If you read any of the published reports into HS2 then you'll see that capacity is the reason for the project.