This is the title of an excellent report by Colin Buchanan and Partners published in January 2009.

It looks at the economics of the high speed line between London and the Channel Tunnel and evaluates costs and benefits. This is a very useful model for people evaluating high-speed rail, because it goes deeper than just the fare revenue and the direct costs.

One issue it discusses, for example, is that of house prices. There is a relationship between house prices, accessibility and deprivation - social equity. As accessibility increases (through, in this case, a high speed line) so do house prices (as the area is more attractive to commuters).

What this does to deprivation is not fully discussed - and a full discussion would be fascinating. Does the increase in house prices lead to locals having to move out - to cheaper areas? Does it mean that some locals can commute further to higher-paying jobs, leaving the lower paying jobs they were doing locally to less well qualified people living locally? Is there a trickle-down effect as more houses and more people lead to more jobs locally?

All in all, a very useful report.

At one time, the return fare on a train was twice the single - sometimes a bit less, as an incentive to commit to a return journey, but not a lot. Now my single fare to London is £9.30 - and the return is £16. So the single is 58%, rather than 50%, of the return. There are times when I have to buy a single - I'm not coming back the same day - so I get penalised. If a return costs £16, is a single costing 58% of this good value for money? Does it feel like it?

Similarly, at one time a 7-day travelcard was worth buying if I was travelling for at least 4 days out of 7. No more: I have to be travelling for 5 days out of 7 for it to be worth-while. I almost never do this - I work from home at least 2 days a week, travel a lot and take weekends off!

Have some train companies tweaked discounts too much in order to raise money? Is this fair? Reasonable? Is there a solution?