PS: If someone could point me to such a study, I would be grateful. If someone wants to join me in undertaking such a study, let me know.
All this, without taking into account the benefits mentioned in other posts – pollution, time saved…..etc., etc.

Here’s some work from the US on the profile of entrepreneurs with successful business in high-growth industries:

http://www.kauffman.org/research-and-policy/the-anatomy-of-an-entrepreneur.aspx

And here’s some work on South Asian businesspeople in the UK:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0777q1210u4336j6/

An interesting point – but this research out today:

http://www.regen.net/bulletins/Regen-Daily-Bulletin/News/987193/Second-home-hotspots-drive-house-prices-survey-shows/?DCMP=EMC-Regen%20Daily%20Bulletin

shows that the top five places with the highest number of second homes are all in areas with very poor rail connection (i.e. remote areas with great coastal or highland views etc).

Perhaps this could suggest that people who want second homes are moving even further out for tranquility, whilst living in what was their second home as a first home, due to improved transport links…

Could you provide some evidence that “the best university and the best workers” are “the ones who most frequently found businesses, start initiatives”?

I’d be keen to know.

Here in the UK, the Bangladeshi community has far higher than average rates for business start ups, and yet are far less likely to be graduates.

I’ll offer up that I think making the best university and best workers even better is an important part of helping everyone. It can be misused if those high flyers choose to hoard all the benefits (monetary and otherwise) for themselves.

But they’re also the ones who most frequently found businesses, start initiatives and run for office. If the super-productive people share those benefits with the rest of their communities (and there’s no guarantee to be sure), something like HSR can have much broader positive effects.

http://www.greengauge21.net/assets/uploads/research-reports_7_2422186523.pdf

There are already three options by rail from Birmingham to London. The fastest takes 1.5 hours on a limited stop intercity service. The slowest is essentially a local train that takes ages, but is very cheap. The new High Speed line will be more expensive. I doubt the travelling habits of those who take the slow train will change at all following the introduction of HS2, if it’s ever built.

To be brutal, I think the principal drivers are civic boosterism of the “core cities” (Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield etc) that want the kudos of a direct link to Europe (many of those cities spend lots on lobbying the EU and rent office space in Brussels); and also the economic outputs from the actual construction (which will be a new line rather than faster trains on existing track).

Of course due to the relative proximity of UK cities, the economic value of high speed rail is entirely different to North America and continental Europe. Distance to London I suspect is the main factor, rather than distance to other major cities. For example, Birmingham both gains and suffers from being the closest to London – firms and government offices do not see the merit of branches so close to London, and so leapfrog to Manchester or Leeds; however, the southern suburbs and exurbs of Birmingham are close enough to house extreme commuters and close links to London.