What What the

Mrs various papers

Teresa indicate....
Villiers
said on
9.6.10
The case for The case depends entirely
high speed rail on an inflated projection of
is undeniable passenger demand, which
does not take into account
that recent growth has
come from discounted off
peak fares not from
premium fares, and does not
allow for the much greener
option of increased virtual
meetings over the next 76
years (the period for which
benefit is calculated). We
should learn from Eurostar
(still only running at 50% of
projected demand) and HS1
(recently halved train
lengths)

It has the The Command Paper says

potential to that while Birmingham may
make a huge accrue economic benefits,
contribution to “this is largely relocation of
the long term existing firms rather than
prosperity of the the creation of new firms –
country which suggests that the
impact on national
productivity is likely to be
limited.” (p177)
It can play a HS2 will increase CO2
crucial role in emissions. According to the
achieving the BAH paper for the DfT
goal of a lower- 12.7.07, HS trains running at
carbon economy 300 kph emit 60% more
CO2 per passenger than
classic rail and 35% more
than cars. The difference will
be worse at the proposed
higher speeds. Since 92% of
expected HS2 passengers
will be new journeys or from
lower CO2 transport it is
clear than HS2 is a HIGH
carbon mode of transport.

High-speed rail It will only impact capacity

could provide a at the very small number of
massive uplift in stations it serves and even
capacity where there is an HS2
station any freeing up of
capacity remains to be seen.
Despite HS1, classic rail
trains from Ashford are
more overcrowded than
ever because so few are
prepared to pay the high-
 speed premium.

It produces Passengers from Coventry,

significant Rugby and Milton Keynes
benefits for will face less frequent
passengers and services with more stops
the economy increasing journey times by
even in areas up to 30 mins.
that are not
directly served
by a line or
station.