[cs02rm0]

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.

[evidencetamper]

If the failure was not a failure, but instead an amazing success, then it would have been more successful than this exceptional success.

[palijer]

This topic is naturally viewed through a survivorship lens, but I don't think it is a bias in this situation.

If the facts of the situation were reversed, of course we would draw the reverses conclusion. That golds true for just about any argument.

[kypro]

You might have a point if it wasn't for the fact that infrastructure projects in the UK generally cost more than our European peers.

The UK's inability to build is apparent everywhere – our extreme lack of house building, our lack of modern nuclear power stations, our sewage system operating beyond its capacity, poor national transportation, etc. If HS2 was an exception to the rule then I doubt there would be this much focus on it. HS2 is just the most costly and extreme example of the problems we face when it comes to major infrastructure projects.

[hnlmorg]

It’s not really survivor bias if the article is about why projects fail. Then it’s just an “example”.