Is high speed rail the most cost-affective way to gain lower pollution?
High initial costs often mean public money has to be used because the private sector is usually unwilling to engage in such large projects. As a result many would argue that the money used to build such rail systems would be more effectively spent in other projects if the primary objectives were to reduce traffic congestion/pollution. For example, if a 3billion high speed rail project is only prejected to reduce traffic by 10%, but if 2billion were spent servicing people’s cars would decrease the emissions by 10%, then the same benefit would be achieved at a lower cost.
