Stop HS2 was sent this earlier today.
Message from Justine Greening, Secretary of State for Transport
Thank you to Stop HS2 Action group for publishing my response to the many emails and letters I have received since my appointment. I am grateful to everyone who has taken the trouble to tell me their views. As has been widely reported I intend to look at the issues around high speed rail rationally and fairly. I understand the strength of feeling of people living along the line of route. I know, for example, that people will be worried about the possible visual and noise impacts, or the potential effect on wildlife and the environment. People living along the proposed London to West Midlands line of route may also have concerns about the compulsory acquisition of land and loss of property value.
As a country we need to think ahead about our future transport needs. This Government believes we need to prioritise projects that ensure economic growth and success whilst also recognising that we need to be less dependent on carbon intensive forms of transport. High speed rail has the potential to meet this test, which is why the proposals have been put forward.
High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future set out why the Government believes a national high speed rail network is right for the future of the country. The public consultation provided a significant opportunity for the debate to be heard. Around 55,000 responses were received and are being analysed and these will be used in informing my decision on the Government’s policy. I intend to make an announcement on this in December.
My Department is not able to respond individually to the many emails and letters sent but I hope that I can give some reassurance that I will take considerable care in looking at the issues and I note the concerns that have been raised.
Global Competitiveness Survey
http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-2011-2012/
UK ranks 26th on roads and 19th on rail. For what its worth, my own conclusion is that we need to invest in both rather than concluding that we need to invest in roads rather than rail (or vice versa)
The latest talk is for more tolls on roads, inspite of the m6 toll being loss making.It seems that instead of transport for all ,it will be transport for those who have plenty of money.this in the main part will be paid for by our taxes.The Bosses wages being higher are increased by % so have moved the population into the Victorian class split.Having watched the program ‘Your money and how they spend it’ last night shows how it is a regular thing for government to regularly spend the taxpayers money on white elephants.Please Ms Greening DO NOT BE GUILTY OF DOING THE SAME..
no method of transport exists that does not create pollution or need some kind of fuel for propulsion. electric rail of any speed is far more efficient and uses less fuel per person then cars or short haul air.
if you build new track either on a new right of way or by existing roads and lines you are going to cause disruption and will require either countyside or homes or offices to be demolished. labours latest plan just moves the line closer to more towns so will affect more people. if the new line is not high speed you lose any time savings and you cant compete with the convenience and flexibility of cars or the speed of planes.
if we dont build more capacity fares will continue to go up and as the population grows the only alternative is to build more runways ands roads. i dont know many people apart from rac foundation, next chairman and those so called economic experts who think we need more roads and i am sure stop hs2 dont. funny that some people who have testified against hs2 are road builders !!!
in a nutshell the most logical and rational decision is in fact to build hs2 more or less as planned. nobody will want to be right next to a high speed line or live through its construction this is perfectly understandable. but wherever you build it there will be opposition. but perhaps not as much as a new motorway or airport because be under no apprehensions that these would not be on the cards without hs2. i use norman fosters plan of new airport and new motorways as an example.
If rail can’t compete with roads and planes unless it is at very high speed, why has existing long distance rail grown so much in recent years and why is the DfT forecasting it to grow so much over the next 20+ years?
I accept the capacity argument and I have sympathy with the argument about the Labour plan, although it does to some extent depend on whether the plan is to retain Heathrow as the main international hub or build something new.
Its interesting that the latest global competitiveness survey ranks the UK’s road network roughly the same as its rail network relative to other countries. This would suggest that we need to invest in both. Will add the link when I have more time
The key word in Justine Greening’s response is ‘believe’, not ‘know” or ‘understand’. It sums up why all the talk about looking at the issues ‘rationally’ is just bunkum. It’s scary to hear our political leaders talk about HS2 as if it’s some kind of cult religion and to view those who demur as heretics. The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.
Dear Justine Greening
I take your points about investing in the future, but I think you will find on researching the reduction of carbon that the massive increase in energy used to drive a train at such high speeds will defeat the objective. Much research has gone in to looking at alternatives which will deliver rail travel to a very high standard without the vast cost both financially and environmentally. We have to remember that we are not the slze of France so the impact on our countryside will be devastating. Obviously my mistake in believing that the Conservatives would protect our areas of outstanding natural beauty.
I hope you will make the difference
Kind regartds
Sandy Herz
“My Department is not able to respond individually to the many emails and letters sent”
Why not?
Although it is good that the Secretary of State has contacted StopHS2, it is worrying that she is still putting forward the idea that high speed rail will generate economic growth, whilst being carbon friendly. Surely enough evidence has been presented to her to clearly show that neither is in fact the case.
The fight is long from being over!
This reads remarkably like a straight bat response.
Everything I’ve read on this vexed topic since the publication of the TSC findings/recommendations leads me to believe that the Minister is preparing to give the go ahead to HS2, more or less in the form currently proposed, ie. Route3 option, although I accept there is still “much water to pass under the bridge”
A more significant landmark in the overall progress of HS2 may well be the publication of the preferred route option for Phase 2, sometime during March/April 2012 – then we’ll have a much clearer picture of the total project.
Typical non statement…..why do we bother with politicians at all I do wonder what value they add
So JG is still spreading government myths about HS2 being environmentally friendly I see (“less dependent on carbon”).
Maybe about time Justine was aletered to the 2007 DfT report “Delivering a sustainable railway”? It states: “Increasing the maximum speed of a train from 200 km/h to 350 km/h means a 90 per cent increase in energy consumption”. Or is she assuming HS2 will run on nuclear electricity from France?
Report is here [para 6.14]:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DfT_SustainableRailway2007.pdf
We need some transparency about the national transport strategy. If we know what the DFT are planning for all transport areas and how they will work together we will understand the whole picture to see if the balancing act can work. Looking at each infrastructure separately means DFT can make statements that will not stand up in the next project i.e.: stopping 3rd runway Heathrow on environmental grounds then considering Thames Estuary project. We understand that capacity is an issue that needs to be resolved for roads, rail and air and that carbon is linked to all areas but carbon is a complicated area. What will the carbon impact of creating HS2 be when you look at construction, when forests are damaged and ground is dug so carbon is released?. We also need to know where all our power will be coming from in the future before we invest in thirsty projects such as HS2, people may not won’t want more nuclear power stations to be built in their back yards . Perhaps a road to somewhere is more useful to the Nation than a train to hardly anywhere.
We understand that Justine Greening has advisers and that her decision won’t be a personal one, but if it is the wrong decision the consequences will weigh on Britain’s shoulders for a very long time.