Dear Editor, Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport, is keen to tell us that the cost and environmental implications of upgrading the West Coast Main Line meant it is not a viable alternative to his proposed high speed rail line. (Post, Dec 9).
He may be right, but I wonder if this is too stark a choice. Our own work has suggested that reducing the speed of the high speed rail line by fairly modest amounts could avoid the very straight route through open countryside and create more options for a line which caused less environmental impact.
Since the Government argues that the primary aim is to provide more rail capacity it doesn’t seem a minute or two on the time from London to Birmingham would have much, if any, impact on the economic case.
We know there is going to be a consultation on the route in the spring and it seems to us that if that is to be an open and real consultation it needs to include a wider range of options.
There is, of course, the bigger question of whether a high speed rail line is the best way to spend public money and we will want reassurances that investment in such a line would not suck investment or expertise out of other much-needed public transport improvements in the region.
However, unlike Mr Kelly of Keltruck, we do not believe it is a sensible approach to throw high speed rail money at a new round of large-scale road building which would inevitably feed even more lorries and cars into our already congested cities. Hasn’t the M6 Toll demonstrated how fruitless further road building would be at reducing congestion?
Gerald Kells
Regional Policy Officer
Campaign to Protect Rural England
West Midlands
