Errors that have undermined faith in high-speed rail link

THE proposed high-speed train (HS2) system has cost estimates which vary from £40bn to £50bn but many believe, based on previous cost over-runs on other schemes, that the final costs will be far higher.

Can such costs, and the devastation caused, be justified by the benefits HS2 will provide? Could such enormous sums of money provide greater benefits if spent on other projects? Will HS2 turn into another huge ‘white elephant’? Where will the money come from to finance the project?

These are amongst the many questions which are frequently asked (Patrick McLoughlin, Yorkshire Post, September 12).

It is almost 60 years since I first had the privilege of voting in a General Election and this is a privilege I have accepted ever since.

I did believe at this age, probably naively, that when 
MPs were elected, we trusted them and gave them the responsibility to achieve the 
best for Britain and her 
peoples; they were intelligent and learned people who had all the full facts which many of us did not have; they could debate all the issues in the House of Commons and hear many different views, and when Parliament agreed a policy I truly believed this must be correct, even if it opposed my earlier views, for this is what democracy is all about.

However, during this lengthy period, MPs have made mistake after mistake which means I no longer have the previous, unwavering faith in their judgments and question the whole HS2 project.

When MPs tell me the HS2 project is absolutely essential and will provide enormous benefits for the whole country, particularly the North, and that it will pay for itself in five years, why do I have grave doubts and the feeling of ‘here we go again’, another scheme which cannot fail? Where have I heard that before?

From: John Barraclough, Kirby Lane, Chapeltown, Sheffield.

WE have read and heard much comment regarding HS2 since the announcement of the proposed route (Yorkshire Post, September 12).

Not unnaturally much of this has emanated from the owners of property in close proximity to the route, for point of argument, say one per cent of the population (and that’s probably much too high).

I consider that to argue on the grounds of cost would affect 100 per cent of the population and is likely to be more effective. We are told that if the scheme goes ahead, ‘hundreds of jobs will be created’.

How anyone could make such a prediction is beyond belief. It would surely be far easier to predict the number of 
passengers that would use the train, thereby enabling some whiz to calculate and announce proposed ticket prices based on running costs plus interest on capital.

Unless ticket prices were 
heavily subsidised, it is unlikely that there would be many passengers who could afford to use the service.

Any such subsidy would, of course, have to be met by the long-suffering taxpayer, most of whom would not use the train.

I challenge the appropriate body to produce and publish 
the forecasts of the number 
of passengers per day along 
with likely ticket prices, 
assuming no subsidy, to enable us to judge whether we should allow the scheme to proceed further.