High Speed Rail - Transport Committee Contents


Written evidence from Mr and Mrs Hart (HSR 50)

We believe that the case for HS2 has not been made and there are many areas we wish to query and we wish to put forward some opposing views to statements held to be proof of the need for this High Speed line.

We believe that much of the case for building of HS2 would be covered more than adequately by using the recommendations made in the upgrade to the West Coast line developed for the Department for Transport, for the west Midland phase.

The RP2 is less expensive than HS2 using the DfT's own figures 2010. This upgrade would be delivered more quickly. It would be a risk free incremental approach, and is better value for money. RP2 would provide all the capacity that the DfT say is needed [about 135%] and would be less crowded.

The assumption that time saving generated by HS2 is a major benefit is erroneous. Modern technology allows work while travelling to be so incredibly effective and that £44 million savings to be generated does not stand up. RP2 will certainly be less disruptive than HS2. The upgrading of existing railways will be far less disruptive than HS2.

HS2 seems to involve the total rebuilding of Euston station, with eight years disruption.

HS2 is not green High speed train consume far more energy than conventional trains. The production of the infrastructure and cement necessary to build HS2 will increase our carbon footprint enormously. It cannot make green claims for HS2.

The North South divide has many road and rail links over the last 100 years and these have made little difference. Why should one more rail line help in any way?

There is no reason to have to keep up with Europe, their railways are a financial disaster, needing an increasing input from their tax payers to maintain.

The Governments materials during their consultation have shown numerous inconsistencies in new and old documentation.

On the above grounds we would like to object to the building of HS2.

May 2011


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 8 November 2011