The arguments against HS2

Published: 31 March, 2011

• HS2 would cause huge damage in Camden and is not in the national interest either.  

Opposition is only the first step. There is no chance that the current process of consultation will lead to the withdrawal of this scheme. 

Both the transport secretary, Philip Hammond, and David Cameron have committed themselves much too deeply for that. 

If HS2 does go ahead, the most that local people can hope for is some minor changes in design or some extra money spent on mitigation or compensation. The damage would still be very substantial.

We need to get rid of HS2 altogether. The way to do that is by replacing or supplementing the current consultations by a proper inquiry, along the lines of the many motorway inquiries that have been held in recent decades. 

Objectors would be able to cross-examine the promoters’ case, and the promoters would also be obliged to repeat their calculations to see the effect of adopting alternative assumptions. For example, the travel forecasts have been criticised for being implausibly high. 

We need to know how the case for HS2, such as it is, would look on the basis of more realistic forecasts. 

Most of the claimed travel benefits come from time savings to business travellers. The calculations assume that the time business people spend travelling on trains is simply wasted. In fact, as has been widely pointed out, it can be extremely productive. 

The promoters should be required to repeat their calculations in a way that allows for that. 

I do not believe that HS2 could survive a proper inquiry of this kind. 

Camden should join with objectors in other parts of the country to demand it. Supporters of the Coalition should demand it too. 

It would be the least painful way of getting the government off the hook on which it has unwisely impaled itself. 

STEPHEN PLOWDEN 
Albert Street, NW1