I think this sounds a little like it's viewed through a lens of survivor bias.
If the UK had made a success of HS2 (difficult to imagine with governments in much of living memory, but let's sidestep all of that) then it could have been claimed, perhaps with some merit, that the UK was able to do something with rail infrastructure that the Swiss could never because they were hamstrung by their approach.
pu_pe · 4m ago
This is a big reason why most modern Western large-scale infrastructure projects get delayed and cost overruns. People making decisions treat construction as if it was cloud computing: just pay for how much you need, when you need it. Some sectors are highly specialized and if their future use is not predictable, they must charge a high premium for that uncertainty.
dhfbshfbu4u3 · 10m ago
The Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high. They have a smaller geographic footprint and heavier services economy. The UK still has so much industrial traffic (inclusive of agriculture) and a far less cohesive political environment. This isn’t to say that HS2 isn’t a train wreck (haha - it is) but applying small country policies to big country problems is a a bit simplistic.
pantalaimon · 1m ago
What does the Swiss method (predicatable and consistent funding for the railway) have to do with population size and density?
Germany has the same problem. The railway can't plan much ahead as funding is always at the political whims of the next government, prestigious mega projects get funded while existing infrastructure crumbles - and now you have another mega-project to remediate existing infrastructure over the next years all at once, but for this they throw copious amounts of money at construction companies to ramp up that fast.
If there had been constant funding and maintenance, the network wouldn't be in such disarray in the first place and it would have come much cheaper than fixing it all at once in a short time frame.
macleginn · 2m ago
How is lower GDP per capita a valid reason for overspending? And a lack of political cohesion shouldn’t be a reason for poor planning.
herbst · 1m ago
UK has a much higher population density.
avh02 · 6m ago
> They have a smaller geographic footprint
you seem to forget their famous mountains
mrks_hy · 7m ago
Did you read the article and can point out which part of the specific method would not work in the UK?
There is nothing in the outlined strategy that would be made unworkable. You may reach a different value-engineered point, and it explicitly mentions cargo trains as well.
thebruce87m · 7m ago
> Swiss vs. UK approach to major _tranport_ projects
The ‘s’ in tranport stands for security.
gadders · 20m ago
I think the Lower Thames Crossing will make HS2 look like a model of efficiency by the time it is completed.
£1.2bn spent without even a shovel of dirt being removed. [1] Instead they have spent money on shite like this [2] (which may be admirable in themselves, but bribes to shut local communities and charities up shouldn't be part of the project).
I'm way more ok with worthy bribes than I am with nonsense like the £100m bat tunnel. But yeah it's still pretty ridiculous.
ta1243 · 2m ago
Compensating local communities for the impact of national infrastructure is a simple approach. Wouldn't surprise me if longer term that would lead to no-win-no-fee consultants trying to extract more money from the process.
1) Don't build national infrastructure
2) Ignore local opposition
jeffrallen · 6m ago
[delayed]
anon191928 · 24m ago
Real monarcy with king and some parts owner by king in Qatar vs real democracy. Not even comparable, lol
If the UK had made a success of HS2 (difficult to imagine with governments in much of living memory, but let's sidestep all of that) then it could have been claimed, perhaps with some merit, that the UK was able to do something with rail infrastructure that the Swiss could never because they were hamstrung by their approach.
Germany has the same problem. The railway can't plan much ahead as funding is always at the political whims of the next government, prestigious mega projects get funded while existing infrastructure crumbles - and now you have another mega-project to remediate existing infrastructure over the next years all at once, but for this they throw copious amounts of money at construction companies to ramp up that fast.
If there had been constant funding and maintenance, the network wouldn't be in such disarray in the first place and it would have come much cheaper than fixing it all at once in a short time frame.
you seem to forget their famous mountains
There is nothing in the outlined strategy that would be made unworkable. You may reach a different value-engineered point, and it explicitly mentions cargo trains as well.
The ‘s’ in tranport stands for security.
£1.2bn spent without even a shovel of dirt being removed. [1] Instead they have spent money on shite like this [2] (which may be admirable in themselves, but bribes to shut local communities and charities up shouldn't be part of the project).
[1] https://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/news/1-2bn-spent-on-l...
[2] https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/lower-thames-crossi...
1) Don't build national infrastructure
2) Ignore local opposition