HS2 tunnel vision

SIR – Surely the money allocated for HS2 would be better spent on making the Midlands and the North truly wonderful places for people to live and work.

Beef up the local transport infrastructure, invest heavily in education and, once we are free from EU regulations, provide subsidies to encourage companies to move there.

If these measures were taken, it would no longer be necessary for so many people to race up and down the country by car, air and rail – and, of course, less travel means lower carbon dioxide emissions. Chris Lambert

Tadworth, Surrey

SIR – I live in Birmingham. At the moment I can take the local train into New Street station, change platforms and get to London in 90 minutes.

With HS2 I shall have to change stations when I get to New Street and then travel on to London. I doubt a few minutes saved will be worth the inconvenience. I can foresee higher charges for a supposedly faster journey – and then higher prices and fewer journeys from New Street to Euston in order to “encourage” prospective passengers to take the “faster” train.

Are civil servants so devoid of imagination that they cannot think of any other projects on which they might spend £106 billion? Dr Marius C Felderhof

Birmingham

SIR – If the Prime Minister is convinced that HS2 is going to be a success, he should follow Margaret Thatcher’s example. She insisted that the Channel Tunnel would only be built with private money – not that of taxpayers.

If any infrastructure scheme is commercially viable, it will attract private investment – preventing further government debt from being passed on to the next generation. Phil Williams

Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire

SIR – If one reads the history of railways, it becomes clear that virtually every line built in this country was opposed and went over cost.

Why the fuss over HS2? Charles F Unsworth

Woolaston, Gloucestershire