Dear Editor, Edward Chadwick in his report on the ‘HS2 Roadshow’ (Post Juen 16) gives a misleading impression that my objection to HS2 is purely motivated by fear of its effects on local house prices, however devastating for many.

In fact my objections and that of many others has nothing to do with this, and everything to do with the weak financial and economic case for the project, and everything to do with its impact both on the national environment and national transport systems.

HS2 as a vanity project is exciting; the design and speed of the trains will undoubtedly give onlookers the same thrill that Concorde did. And like Concorde, it will cost an enormous amount when all around us budgets are being slashed.

Of course it will detract investment from other transport projects and it fails to recognise the true nature of our transport problems which is the poor provision of good, affordable, rapid, local commuting services, be they here, London, the South-east, the North-east or North-west.

And it is this that most impinges on local employment – getting to London from Birmingham in 15 minutes quicker is neither here nor there.

Financially HS2 will run at a loss for some time if not for ever. The presenters of the exhibition were upfront about the fact that until the line reaches Manchester it will be hard to recover the huge infrastructure capital costs that will be incurred at the London end of the project. Moreover, they also said that they hoped 70 per cent of the users of the line would be the “leisure classes”.

They also admitted that fare structures would have to take into account a “slight” premium for using a high speed line. Most leisure users, however, will raise their eyebrows at the thought of paying premium fares for a saving of 15 minutes when in fact the overall travel time will be longer given the need to get to new stations.

The World Bank in its report on HS Rail (2010) points out “The demographic and economic conditions that can support the financial or economic viability of high speed rail are limited” and concludes “Governments contemplating the benefits of a new high speed railway... should also contemplate the near-certainty of copious and continuing support for the debt.”

Judith Kennedy

Hampton-in-Arden