HS2 naysayers

SIR – My letter (February 17) supporting HS2 and ruing the opposition to attempts to improve infrastructure prompted a 4-0 naysayer response (Letters, February 21).

Two letters criticised the “limited” route – but HS2 is for long-distance travel, with minimal stops, and its ultimate destination is Newcastle, which is rather more than “half way up England”. A longer-term goal could be to reach Edinburgh or Glasgow.

Another letter cited the demolition of 220 houses in London NW1 for HS2, compared with “unaffected” Camberley. However, in 1967, the new M3 cut Camberley’s centre in half. It resulted in the demolition of hundreds of homes, and long-term noise and pollution. A high-speed, clean electric train would have been preferable.

These correspondents should look at Europe’s high-speed and motorway networks to see how sparse our coverage is by comparison. Negativity is endemic in Britain. There were objections to the M4, M3 and M25, the Newbury bypass – and now the Stonehenge tunnel and Winterbourne Stoke bypass. The Salisbury bypass never got built due to a species of newt; nor was the M27 extended from Chichester to Dover, which is one reason why the M25 remains a huge, polluting car park at times.

Simon Bathurst Brown

Camberley, Surrey

SIR – HS2 was a deeply flawed project from the outset and should have been kick into touch by David Cameron.

It might have made sense had it been an extension of the Eurostar. But the UK does not need the planned speeds of HS2, whereas the TGV makes sense because France is so vast.

Extra track capacity would be welcome, but this should be for freight and the restoration of lines that should never have been closed by Beeching. Barry Sprules

Pulborough, West Sussex