Rather than wasting money on private sector consultants, unnecessary and polluting infrastructure projects, or just outright corruption, the government could prioritise investments that would actually expand the supply of available resources over the long run. What would such an approach look like?
It would mean fewer massive, glamorous infrastructure projects that made use of expensive private sector financing and advice, and many more smaller, more sustainable investments. Investments like improving existing public transport capacity in areas currently underserved by our woeful privatised bus and rail services; or expanding renewable energy across the country; or funding desperately needed research into the climate crisis, and the development of new technologies to tackle it.
Rail investment, famously cheap. And this sounds like pretty much the worst approach, what's called "crayonning" by rail people- you look at a map and think "Hmmm, big gap there between Gloucester and Ledbury let's fill that in with a railway line. Actually look, there used to be a railway there!Imagine how great it would be we brought it back!"
There follows a campaign where a bunch of people tell you they'd definitely use it, and the politicians pushing it (Lib Dem in the past, more likely Green now, but "backbencher" types of all parties get involved too. Everyone feels very down to earth because who needs to get to Birmingham quicker, eh? Some silly costings follow, and it goes nowhere.
Certainly, some lines could be brought back at a later stage, but in the meantime there are problems with capacity on mainlines that need fixing. Without doing that, all you'd be adding is shuttles, which are of limited use. Lots of money has been spent on improving capacity on existring lines, but it doesn't realy look any different on a map. But building it gives you a lot more through routes to different places here people definitely do want to go.
100 %
- By davidjay