HS2 critics are still ignoring the facts
THE HS2 project has always divided opinion, and three writers, David Briggs, Rosie Jarrett and Nigel Starbuck, have all expressed their opinions recently.
The initial concept of HS2 had wide support from across the political spectrum resulting in an initial proposal in 2009. Many people believe that HS2 is simply a way of getting from A to B more quickly, but this was not the reason that it was conceived. The decade from 1995 to 2005 had seen passenger journeys grow by over 40 percent. That growth was forecast to continue. Some parts of the rail network were running at capacity, most notably the West Coast Main Line. HS2 was seen as more cost-effective and less disruptive than upgrades to the existing network. Despite a leap in forecast construction costs, the Act of Parliament to authorise Phase 1 was passed in 2017. The project has been subject to a number of reviews, but, passenger growth has continued. By 2019 passenger numbers on UK rail were 138 percent higher than 1995. Although groundworks had been in progress for some time, full-scale development started in April 2020.
While David Briggs (“Cat out of bag over real reason for HS2”, Opinion, January 20) has written many times objecting to HS2, his suggestion that the reason the project is continuing is to avoid damaging the construction industry shows, like many letter writers, a lack of understanding of the challenges facing decision makers.
More than 13,000 people are currently employed on HS2, including 1,000 apprenticeships, with thousands of others being part of the supply chain. While David Briggs focuses on the construction companies, perhaps he ought to consider the impact on their employees if HS2 were to be cancelled now.
Rosie Jarrett (“HS2 exists to keep these firms at work”, Opinion, January 21) believes that HS2 was developed to provide a continuation of work from the Channel Tunnel, but the Tunnel was opened almost 27 years ago, in 1994.
Nigel Starbuck (“Cost-effective option to replace HS2 folly?”, Opinion, January 22) suggests that the old Great Central line should have been developed instead.
This idea is an old chestnut. Apart from the fact that the Great Central never served Birmingham, or Leeds, the suggestion that the route was engineered to current standards, in terms of loading gauge or straightness is wide of the mark. A quick search on the internet will provide several articles from engineers that will explain why the line does not meet the requirements of a 21st-century railway. Neil Stafford West Bridgford