www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33957559
Been for a walk this morning around Quainton, another village campaigning against HS2.
While the two things are not mutually exclusive, I question whether it would be better to kick HS2 into touch and spend some serious money on getting everybody connected to superfast internet.
HS2 will benefit relatively few people, and the benefits are hotly disputed. Arguably it will make the country even more London-centric.
The UK is one of the most internet-reliant countries in the world, but lags in the availability of fast reliable service that would benefit everybody and has the potential to reduce commuting and its impact on resources, capacity, and the environment. High speed internet could be delivered more quickly and with less disruption than HS2.
In the 1930s, the Grand Union Canal between London and Birmingham was modernised to allow 14' wide boats to travel from London to Birmingham. It created employment and probably helped to stimulate the economy but within 20 years it was irrelevant.
HS2 will create economic activity in its construction, but so would connecting the country with fibre - and it would not despoil the countryside or blight anybody's home. Neither would it have to be completed to bring any benefits, which would start immediately and build with every new fibre connection.
Compared to HS2 it could be a bigger, and easier, win. If it isn't done quickly, our economy will surely suffer in the future and it could take decades to catch up.
I have written to my MP to this effect, for what good it will do!
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 17 Aug 15 at 15:51
|
UK Broadband speeds new
UK Broadband speeds new