- I think that the arguments relating to the UK's High Speed 2 project are more
finely balanced than Dave Holladay makes out.
One of the key issues which have driven the demand for HS2 is that capacity on
some of our classical rail routes is running out. Now true greens would no doubt
say that this is because people are travelling too much, but true greens should
also want to shift motorists (and road freight) to rail, which means that we are
likely to need extra capacity in any case.
The London termini are not interchangeable, neither does everyone always want to
go to the City of London. HS1 has dramatically reduced journey times between
many places in Kent and the north side of London (and beyond), and will soon be
serving the major developments currently under way at Stratford (initially for
the Olympics, but it will remain a major centre afterwards).
There are legitimate concerns about the adequacy of the consultation process,
and about whether the planning of the HS2 route has given adequate consideration
to connectivity with the existing network. I would also say that it is wrong to
spend large amounts of money on superprojects when local transport services are
being cut back. However I feel that many opponents of the scheme have
exaggerated its adverse effects, and I do not think it is right to exclude the
possibility of high speed rail from Britain's future.
Various transport and environmental campaign groups have got together to form
the Right Lines Charter which I support. See