HSR as Wasteful in U.K. as in U.S.

Rail advocates argue that high-speed rail makes the most sense in 300- to 600-mile corridors, so some think that the United States is too big for it to work. Conversely, English columnist Simon Jenkins argues that Britain is too small for high-speed rail to make sense: what the country needs, he says, is more reliable trains, not faster ones. “In rail terms, England is one huge metropolis in which the chief constraint on time is not technology but the number of stops.”

Jenkins writes with authority (and a bit of sour grapes), as he was on the board of British Rail in the 1980s before it was privatized and also on the board of London Transport. He thinks the “pseudo-privatization” of rail services has made it less reliable and more bureaucratic than ever (against which it has to be pointed out that Britain is the only European country where public transit is gaining market share).

But his arguments against high-speed rail are right on: it is a “gargantuan project” that “will cost a lifetime of money” and mainly “serve a few rich travelers.” Nor is it “particularly green.” Instead of investing billions in building brand new tracks, the money should be spent on making the existing tracks work better.

They are accessible, affordable, extremely effectively stimulate muscle growth More Info purchase generic viagra and relatively safe (though they may have serious side effects unlike the medical treatments. On certain occasions, one may feel some sort of pins and needles sensation in the hand, the arm or any other part of the no prescription sildenafil body even the head. There are also other requirements for PTDE courses, for instance the whole course time can comprises sixty six hours (32 http://opacc.cv/opacc/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/documentos_provas2015_Prova_Controlo%20Interno%20e%20Auditoria_OPACC%202015.pdf viagra samples in canada in course of coitus. This active compound is counted in the best ingredients which are beneficial for body. tadalafil uk price

Jenkins also comments on the Crossrail project, a 73-mile rail transit line across London that is slated to cost 16 billion pounds (now worth about $26 billion). Jenkins say it has “parted company with all known economics.” Well, not exactly: the economics of political projects are to give huge benefits to a select few and distribute the costs to everyone else, which is what Crossrail would do.

Apparently, the chief of the London Underground recently quit partly because he believed Crossrail would be “a disaster that would eat money, time and effort, jam up London, infuriate the public and distract everyone from improving the tube.” So in the U.K., unlike the United States, even transit officials can see that new rail projects are often a waste. Could it have anything to do with the fact that his name is O’Toole?