Proud to be a ‘moaner’ over folly of HS2

I READ with interest the letter from Stuart Green of Worksop (Yorkshire Post, October 4).

I am apparently a South East nimby only concerned with stopping economic progress in the North by seeking to protect an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in the South. Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin recently referred to me as a south east “moaner”.

I am therefore assuming he will be referring to Yorkshire people as “moaners” now that they are beginning to question the logic 
of this HS2 project.

A few fast facts and ironies that started me down the road to being a “moaner”:

Logistics businesses stand to make billions in profit from HS2 once it releases the capacity on the East and West Coast main lines – if they want the rail capacity, they should and can afford to pay for it! We the taxpayer cannot, we have schools and hospitals under threat of a funding crisis.

HS2 is nothing to do with passenger capacity and everything to do with big business profiteering from it, ably assisted by our politicians throwing billions of pounds into these projects so they can falsely claim a few thousand jobs are created that are actually relocations from elsewhere.

HS2 will heal the North-South divide, but services to Coventry, Leicester, Stoke, Stockport, Doncaster and Wakefield are all being cut (some in half). Many services to the North East will make way for freight trains.

I therefore conclude that if “moaning” means being critical of illogical facts and profligate spending by a government in favour of businesses that do not pay their way versus schools and hospitals that need our help, I am a self-confessed “moaner” and proud of it!

From: Mr R Hanson, Swallow Lane, Golcar, Huddersfield.

IT is necessary that the prediction that both passenger and freight land transport will grind to a standstill (indeed on some routes this often happens today), without extra capacity such as high speed rail, is acted on.

So what is the alternative to HS2? More roads? A six-lane motorway from both Manchester and Leeds converging into a 10-lane one between Birmingham and London would help but because freight would still be on the roads it would not have the passenger carrying capacity of HS2.

From: Andrew Staniforth, Neill Road, Sheffield.

THANK you for publishing the adverse comments about HS2 (Yorkshire Post, October 8). Perhaps the Parliamentary stubbornness on this topic could make it do for David Cameron what the poll tax did for Margaret Thatcher.

It seems bizarre that on the same day that Leeds City Council announces switching off street lights “to cut down carbon emissions and save money” they haven’t withdrawn support for the notoriously gas guzzling, highly polluting and costly train proposal. Also it is very upsetting to see how much extra cash is now being squandered by the Government on a propaganda campaign. On top of what has already been thrown away upon HS2, it can surely only turn public feeling more violently against them.

From: Nigel F Boddy, Fife Road, Darlington.

IF you can make a case for HS2 at all, instead of building the HS2 project, can we rescue a railway axed during the Beeching cuts? Several of the lines Beeching dismantled were railways right through the Midlands. If we focus on restoration, we could have something speedy sooner and cheaper than HS2.

My father, a life-long railwayman, told me the number of stops our newer, modern trains make determines the journey times more than anything else. It is the speeding up and slowing down of trains which takes the energy and time.

Ultimately restricting the number of stops cut journey times to London on the East Coast main line.

I remember trains always stopped at Grantham and Retford on the way to London.

The ones I take now never do. Many others miss out Durham, Doncaster and Darlington too.

From; Terry Morrell, Prunus Avenue, Willerby.

HS2 is aimed at getting more people down to London quicker, not up to Leeds and the North.

The place is already overcrowded and our total economy is focused there. We really should be trying to revitalise the rest of the country right now and not in 20 years time.

If the money was spent on encouraging companies to “do 
a BBC” and move out of the capital, everyone would benefit. But how?

If companies were offered huge rates or tax discount to move 
out of the South East, say 25 per cent for moving more than 100 miles, 30 per cent for more than 150 miles and so on, I am sure that we would see a positive result, but the carrots would have to be big enough.

The increase in regional production plus the reduction 
in benefit payments as the 
level of employment rises 
in the regions would quickly justify the costs involved but 
the HS2 cash could provide 
the “kick-start” finance 
necessary.

Real threat 
to green belt

From: Julian Sturdy, Conservative MP for York Outer, Ash Street, York.

I WAS disappointed to read your article entitled “Warning on green belt after planning inspector’s ruling” (Yorkshire Post, October 4). In my opinion, the article missed the point of what the inspector was actually saying.

According to the article, the inspector’s decision to allow an eight home development to be built on established green belt land, highlighted the “importance of concluding the local plan process as soon as possible”.

However, the reason the inspector approved the new development was that the site in question was a small “sliver” of land, adjacent to a built-up area, which served, in the inspector’s eyes, no green belt function. The land was also, the inspector suggested, identified for future development in the City of York Council’s draft Local Plan.

Sadly, the council’s draft Local Plan goes much further.

In its current form the plan proposes to concrete over approximately 2,000 acres of prime, open countryside and decimate our established green belt which has preserved and enhanced the character and setting of our great cathedral city for so long.

It is precisely this type of land which the inspector stated should be protected with green belt status. It is a real shame that the council is failing in its duty to recognise this.