HS2 Rail Link a disaster in the making for Rugby?

The Government announced yesterday that the controversial HS2 rail link would go ahead at an estimated cost of £32billion. To appease protesters (and there are many) the Government announced a extra £500million spend for more tunnels and engineering works.

It is worth reiterating what local MP Mark Pawsey had to say about the subject on 17th October 2011.

He said:

Last week the House of Commons held a Parliamentary debate on the Government’s proposals for a new high speed rail network. This will involve the construction of a new line between London and Birmingham to be known as HS2, linking to cities in the north of England and Scotland. Regrettably due to time constraints none of Warwickshire’s MPs were able to contribute to the debate.
 
Speaking afterwards Rugby MP Mark Pawsey voiced his opposition to HS2. Mark expressed his concerns about the merits of the business case for the scheme and also expressed his belief that other potentially cheaper alternatives to the plans need to be explored.
 
Mark said:
 
“I felt it was important to keep an open mind regarding the Government’s HS2 proposals when they were first announced and I have paid close attention to the arguments both for and against the scheme as the debate has progressed. I did not instinctively oppose the plans as I do see the need to improve our transport infrastructure in order to promote and stimulate growth in the country. I do not, however, believe that HS2 is the best way to achieve this.”
 
Mark continued:
 
“I have a real concern that the development of HS2 could lead to poorer services at a number of stations on the legacy West Coast Main Line, including Rugby. If the existing service is downgraded, Rugby trains could be reduced to ‘all station stoppers’ and the business attraction of a 50 minute link to London may be lost. Add this to the more immediate worry about the reliability of the existing services during the rebuilding of Euston station a few years from now, and local commuters have a right to be concerned about the future impact on their journeys”.
 
Mark added:
 
“Moreover I do not see a sound business case for HS2, as many of the economic arguments in favour of it do not stand the test. For one thing I simply do not agree that all journey time on trains is wasted. Every time I travel by train I share carriages with people busily working on laptops, and a £32 billion enterprise should not be based on outdated knowledge. I also believe that there are cheaper alternatives available such as an improvement to the existing network. Capacity on the West Coast Main Line could increase simply by changing the mix of first and second class coaches and increasing the train length by adding more carriages”.
 
Mark concluded:
 
“Having carefully considered all the business evidence, as well as the likely impact on Rugby, I must state that I am not supportive of the proposals and do not feel that they are justified in the present economic climate. I would like to reiterate that whilst I am fully supportive of the Government’s pro-growth and pro-development agenda, I do not feel that HS2 is an appropriate way to support these aims.”

What do you think?

Your comments would be appreciated