Post by The Good DoctorPost by DavePost by The Good DoctorFirst, the Channel Tunnel should not have been built. Second, we
should not have thrown good money after bad by building an extremely
expensive high speed rail link.
Tosh. Both are capable of making operating profits and both are useful
assets European transport. It's only the form and source of the financing
that needs to be called into question.
That's like saying you can easily afford to pay your household bills,
but you cannot afford the mortgage repayments.
This is yet another one of your straw man arguments. I do not seek
public support for my mortgage and neither is my house an important
piece of European infrastructure.
All governments invest public money into capital infrastructure
projects, just that this one in the past has tended to put it into
roads. The situation I described with Eurostar covering its operating
cost is no different to any of the domestic TOCs, because even the
ones that make operating profit are quietly subsidised through the DfT
money paid to Network Rail keeping track access charges down. The only
difference is that the existing infrastructure has had 150 years to
amortise its initial capital.
Therefore your insistence that Eurostar / Eurotunnel be the only rail
company in the world whose capital investment be completely off the
public accounts is somewhat illogical - just like the blinkered
Thatcherite views that caused this issue in the first place.
Post by The Good DoctorTry telling the bank or building society who lent you the money that
"I can pay my council tax and utility bills, and the house is very
useful to me, it is only the form and source of the financing
that needs to be called into question."
They would immediately spot that you are a complete idiot.
Mr Polson throwing about personal insults. I'd hoped you could respond
with a constructive argument. Should have known from past form.
Post by The Good DoctorPost by DaveYou clearly have no trouble with £5bn for Crossrail coming from general
taxation and another £5bn coming from TfL (aka taxation). What a shame the
Channel Tunnel wasn't given the same head start - no thanks to Tory
idealism.
I have no problem in public investment in viable projects. Crossrail
is one, Thameslink is another. I am a very strong supporter of both
projects.
We've seen.
However, if these were "viable", there would be no need for the public
investment. What are your criteria for a viable public infrastructure
project, because reading your previous posts one would come to the
conclusion that it was a project that could pay back its debt from
revenues?
Post by The Good DoctorWhere I do have a problem is wasting public (or private) money on
projects that just aren't viable. Both the Channel Tunnel and its
rail link were sold to the Government(s) on the basis of grossly
over-optimistic traffic forecasts that bordered on systematic lying.
No. They were sold to the governments on figures that were available
at the time. Perhaps Stelios Haji Ioannou could have commented on what
was about to happen, but it's widely accepted that the low cost
airline phenomenon was not foreseen in the late 80s. The fact that
Eurostar are pulling in 75% of the market from London is testament to
the demand for this type of service. If regional and night services
had been given access to the potential market at the time (i.e.
Easyjet et al didn't happen) then I'm sure we would see circa 15m
passengers by now.
Post by The Good DoctorThe figures showed the Channel Tunnel would be viable. It wasn't. The
figures showed the Channel Tunnel Rail Link would be viable. It
isn't.
I've shown real world data in a previous post that shows Eurostar is
comparable in popularity to any other intercity service in the UK. The
stance you take on this subject shows that you are infact anti all
long distance rail. The WCML received over £8bn - on a line serving a
market of circa 10m passengers per annum. Was that good value? Not
IMHO - it should have been spent on HS2.
Although it wont make the headlines, thanks to the subsidy received by
Network Rail, everywhere else will receive similar figures - just
spread over a longer time. Does that mean we should shut down the
entire railway? With your usenet name, I think I know what the answer
will be.
Post by The Good DoctorOnly an idiot would believe a third set of figures.
Again, I've posted figures that show the full potential market for HS2
(London - Manchester - Leeds - Newcastle - Edinburgh - Glasgow) is
over 17m journeys per annum on London services alone. Throw in
intermediate journeys (which are in the URL I linked to) and the
market is huge. That's today's data, not projected figures based on
market growth or passengers captured from other modes. Anything above
that would be a bonus, a market which clearly can be captured judging
by the number of planes leaving London airports for Scotland - and a
market which is not going to go anywhere by just changing the colours
on the side of a rake of Class 4s.
And you are plainly a road / air lobby troll. The reason you don't
like high-speed rail, or long distance rail in general, is because it
scares you. As long as investment is directed to urban rail schemes,
preferably in London, it can't be used to eat into the market for what
you really stand for - more money for road schemes and airports.
You've said as much in the past. Yet when it comes to actually backing
up your point of view with some data, all we get is straw men and
personal insults.
This conversation is getting very boring. I suggest that you go away
for a while and perhaps do some research to support your stance. Come
back when you have something we can analyse.
D