THE POLITICS of high-speed rail in Britain are unrecognisable to an American—at least on the national level. Unlike in America, where Republicans almost universally despise rail projects in general, and high-speed rail in particular, all three main political parties in Britain support the plan, initially proposed by Labour in 2009, to extend high-speed rail north of London. But once you get down to the local level, American and British rail politics don't look so different after all. Cities want (and will fight for) new high-speed services to their central business districts. Suburban and rural areas are much more resistant, and NIMBY and environmental concerns are often cited to block construction.

Witness the increasingly strained tenor of the fight over HS2, which would bring high-speed services to the Midlands and the North. The line will run from London to Birmingham before splitting, with routes to Manchester and Leeds; Patrick McLoughlin, the transport secretary, is set to announce the details "shortly," according to the Department of Transport. Proponents say the plan will relieve congestion on the West Coast Main Line and dramatically reduce travel times. Opponents (this will sound familiar to American readers) say the plan is too expensive, unnecessary, and will damage the environment. Tempers are high: a recent Telegraph headline called the project "A cancer that will cost our country dear."

The Economist has long maintained that the fate of the HS2 project should be determined by its commercial viability; unfortunately, these sorts of government projects too often seem to take on a life of their own, detached from any real-world considerations. In America, you can usually predict a person's support for or opposition to a given rail project as long as you know whether he is a Democrat or Republican. In Britain, the debate is thankfully not quite so predictable—at least, not yet. My colleague at our sister blog Blighty has done a great job maintaining a sceptical eye towards the HS2 project. Let's hope that sort of figures-based analysis of this project's worth continues. It's possible that a big new high-speed line is what Britain needs; it's also possible that, as in America, investments in improving existing infrastructure often offer more value for money. With planned completion of the first stage of the line, to Birmingham, 13 years off, there's still time for Britain to change course—and for parties to change their positions. Either way, there are certainly many more fights ahead.