HS2 has other lines of thought

I’ve got to agree with L Davies on HS2 (MetroTalk, Thu) – is it really worth spending £106billion-plus wrecking homes, businesses and the environment so that a very small percentage of the population can get from one city in England to another only a few minutes faster?

There are things called aeroplanes – they’ve been about for a while. They’ll get you there even quicker without having to knock down any houses or destroy the countryside.

Mick, London

Your correspondent L Davies is incorrect. HS2 is essential to increase rail capacity, in particular on the West and East Coast main lines. And in response to the tired, old argument that the same result could be achieved by upgrading the rest of the network, which is very unlikely, this could only happen after years of disruption by weekend and Bank Holiday engineering works.

And does anyone seriously believe that if this money is not spent on HS2 it will really be spent on the rest of the network? If so, dream on!

The companies who have spent millions on preparing tenders, gearing up for manufacturing and organising supply chains might have something to say too if the project is cancelled, probably involving lawyers and compensation.

Peter Reynolds, Smethwick

Regarding HS2 funding and purposes, L Davies parrots misinformation on the most vital points, even if they believe in good faith in what they wrote.

Fact one – such projects are funded by borrowing against future fares income, not from a stash of cash – ‘the billions’ exist only because the project does, so it makes no difference to normal public funding.

Fact two – it’s massively proenvironment by transferring millions of journeys from cars and planes to (zero-carbon) electric trains, and also by making space for more freight trains, reducing lorry mileages.