Mizter T wrote:

I was suggesting that I don't
think people are really going to be willing to subsidise the
construction of very expensive new high-speed lines which benefit
already affluent commuters so as to enable them to make 100 mile plus
daily journeys. Of course, inevitably any new high-speed line would
increase the incidence of long-distance commuting , it's an inevitable
by-product - but specifically designing and constructing such lines
for commuting purposes isn't on (and of course is never going to
happen). Instead I'd be in favour of spending some of that money to
help all the family men and women who already live in towns and
cities, and to encourage families to live in the towns and cities in
which members of that family work, etc etc etc.


There's a problem here. There will be a lot of opposition to the
construction of high speed lines that cause a lot of noise and
disruption during construction and a lot of noise in operation, if
people along the route don't benefit in some tangible way from the
services that run on those lines.

I think, if they go ahead at all, we'll have to end up with four track
routes that carry freight and more "local" services as well as up to 350
km/h long distance services. And that will only encourage long distance
commuting.

You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability of
using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums than the
already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise professional people's
long distance daily commute. I agree that this makes no sense at all,
and that long distance commuting should be discouraged.