HS2: developing a new high speed rail network
This may sound bland, but the important bit is in the details and the proposed actions, so we recommend that you...
(Consider what the policy doesn't mention, as well as what it does.)
Your position on the policy
Support or Oppose?
To give your response, please sign in...
What other people say
- 1 person mostly supports.
- 2 people mostly opposes.
- 1 person strongly opposes.
I think this is overall an important long-term goal. However it shouldn't be done at the expense of investment in the rest of the railway network. – Frankie Roberto
I like the principle or striving to implement big , long term projects, but HST2 doesn't feel like its big or long term enough. It's not like trains are new or revolutionary any more.
It's the right ambitions, maybe the wrong project. – Saul Cozens
Would rather the money was spent on fiber that could connect up the whole UK rather than a rail network that links a handful of cities. We should be moving away from the idea of moving people around on a daily basis and instead improving the ability to work/interact remotely. – Rev Dan Catt
I can't see any plausible reason why we needed to spend this money on HS2 rather than anything else. Think of the opportunity cost! – tomstafford
HS2 will draw more economic activity, wealth, power and influence into London, away from the regions.
It will also encourage green-field development near the sites of the proposed railway stations.
It won't make journeys between (say) Nottingham and London any faster than now, when you take account of interchanging with the new railway line.
Also, the Government can barely find 2p down the back of the sofa for cycling infrastructure, yet pulls out all of the stops for a vanity project that won't improve links within cities or between regions (e.g. Bristol -> Liverpool).
It's too much money for a minimal effect, country-wide, and based on flawed assumptions (e.g. that people on trains currently aren't using that time in a productive way). – Tim Beadle