This week the Government launched its consultation on a proposed second High Speed Rail line (HS2). The Government wants to provide a super fast train service (up to 300km/190m per hour) from London to Birmingham with the view to extend the line to cities in the north of England and Scotland. The trouble is that the proposed route will cut a swathe through some of the most beautiful countryside in the country, including a very tiny slice of my ward at Maple Cross. As a result, Three Rivers District Council is a statutory consultee.

The official claims are that journey times from London to Birmingham will be cut from an hour and 25 minutes to 45 minutes and shave almost an hour off the current journey time to Manchester (some of the proposed journey time cuts to Scottish cities are even more impressive). The Government also claims that this project will create up to 40,000 jobs, provide valuable commuter connections between our cities and provide a much needed boost to our economy (estimated around £45b). They also make the environmental case for this project by claiming that providing a fast rail service to and from London will make it a viable alternative to car and air travel and will reduce CO2 emissions each year by 1m tonnes by 2055.

There are a number of groups who have come out against the proposed project (a quick internet search will bring many of them up!) As I see it, their main arguments are as follows:

• A waste of money – no return on £17b-£33b estimated cost; no money to pay for it
• No business case – the economic benefits are overstated
• It will cause huge disruption on the current railways for years to come
• It will destroy ancient and fragile, woodlands, paths and eco-systems
• It will destroy the peace, tranquility and aesthetic of the countryside

Whilst I accept this might sound controversial, having read the government’s case and a number of the anti HS2 websites, I find the case FOR HS2 far more convincing. When I go over to the continent, I’m amazed at how fast and efficient the high speed rail networks are in France and Germany. They are seen as a cause for national pride and one can, for example, get from Paris to the south of France in less than 3 hours. Did they not have beautiful and ancient countryside to consider? Of course they did however they saw the benefits – both economic and environmental – of investing in such as scheme.

I also think we desperately need large scale capital projects to provide much needed work for a labour market that is currently suffering during this recession. Not just any capital project however (like a third runway at Heathrow or more roads) – the projects need to look to the future, provide bona fide economic benefits as well as offering genuine environmental benefits too. Unless one totally rejects all the evidence of global warming, anything that helps take cars off the roads and takes planes out of the sky surely has to be good thing. I also think that a train trundling through rolling hills is actually aesthetically pleasing on the eye and not an eyesore at all (although I accept I might have a different opinion if my house shook as a result of a 200 mph train travelling nearby). Finally, I think that with so much emphasis these days on the environment, the developers will be duty bound to be extra sensitive towards natural and human habitats and eco-systems.

So although on current evidence the case for HS2 does sound compelling, one must not however totally ignore the issues raised by the “no” campaigners. Many of their concerns are totally valid and must be given a fair hearing. Personally, I would like to see the following:

• A disruption assessment – a projection of how much disruption to the current rail network is likely to be caused and what that will mean to commuters.
• An environmental impact assessment – let’s look at the proposed route five kilometres at a time and see what damage is likely to be caused to the local habitat and what can be done to prevent or at the very least minimise this.
• An economic impact assessment – how will the compulsory purchase of land affect land owners and how will a rail line going through villages and communities affect house prices?
• Accessibility & affordability assessment – high speed rail services should truly be for the people with standard fare carriages a priority and reasonably priced fares built in to any affordability forecasts. This service should not be the preserve of business users or the wealthy with an overabundance of first class carriages.

If as a result of these assessments, operational, environmental and economic disruption can be avoided or at the very least minimised, and the case can be proved that this service is truly for the people then perhaps this might go some way to winning overall public support for HS2.

So, you’ve heard my view, but I’m keen to know what you think. Am I well off the mark? Am I underplaying the environmental impact? Am I overplaying the economic benefits? Feel free to leave a comment on this site or send me a Facebook message: (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000619438293) and let me know what you think. The consultation lasts for another 149 days so there is plenty of time to have your say. There is also a roadshow of exhibitions being laid on to educate the public in towns and villages along or near the proposed route. The nearest ones to us are Ruislip & Ickenham on March 30th31st (http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/roadshow/ruislip-and-ickenham-exhibition) and Amersham on May 18th/19th.

If you wish to read the government consultation for yourself and formally make your opinion known to the government, please go to the following site: http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/.

   1 Comment