Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:06:20 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:
(snip)
Ridiculous nanny state interference by the HSE aside, that's only a subset
of the issue. Any major infrastructure project in the UK takes the guts of
a decade to work through a ridiculously complex self inflicted planning
process.
I agree that some things do take far too long. But I don't think that
removing rules in their entirety (or almost in their entirety) would
somehow make our country a "better place".

The answer to over regulation is never more regulation.

It would, for example, be
much more convenient for many people if the M1 were to continue
southwards from Staples Corner to - say - Marble Arch.

By removing the power to do that from Whitehall to Localities, the
likelihood of that part of the Abercrombie box being resurrected is rather
low.

The reason we don't do that is because the advantages of such a thing would be
outweighed by the disadvantages. The same thinking (slowed down by our
planning process, for all its faults) saw the ultimate end of the Inner
Motorway Box, the M11 southwards extension and (I think) something
similar for the M23.

It also caused horrendous congestion in the SE by delaying the completion
of the M25 by 15 odd years.

Rubbish. The same logic would say that not building the Motorway Box or
any other road scheme has "caused" congestion. Congestion has arisen
because too many people want to use too little roadspace, which is
because the cost of travel is suboptimal. Building new roads merely
lowers the cost of travel and encourages people to travel more, and the
result in a dense region like the south east is a congested equilibrium
- just as before.

So whilst the south east may have had "horrendous congestion" before the
M25, it still has "horrendous congestion" after the M25, and may well
always have horrendous congestion unless someone optimises the cost of
travel - i.e. introduces road pricing.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London