The entire railway network is already State-subsidised.
Plus, I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding to attach the words "luxury high speed travel" together as if it's a given that just because it's new and fast, it's first class all the way. Ryanair isn't luxury, even though it's fast. Standard class on the WCML between London and Glasgow, the fastest rail we currently have, isn't luxury.
There will doubtless be a price premium for the benefit that is derived from the reduced journey time but Damien has already demonstrated that in the case of HS1 the price differential doesn't render that benefit beyond the means of everyone bar the super-rich. In fact, there is absolutely no reason to think that services on HS2 will be priced beyond everyone's means; the service simply won't be viable if it opens with sky-high fares.
Re your comment about families travelling with children - I don't think they're setting themselves up in competition with the family car. A car that's full is an efficient use of resources already.
---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Also, as I said, the evidence of HS1 is that high speed tickets are about £5 more expensive.
|
10p per mile more expensive might be a more useful way of expressing that.
Assuming it can be extrapolated, that would make a Birmingham-London ticket about £10 more expensive on HS2 than on traditional 'snail rail' ... however once you get onto the mainline services (which Network Southeast, as it was once called, is not) there tends to be a lot more variability in fares so it might be difficult to compare.
No doubt some halfwitted hack will give it a try at some point though, inevitably comparing the cheapest possible London-Birmingham fare on the established services with the most expensive fare on HS2 in order to concoct the 'white elephant' story so beloved of our whingeing media.