What Mrs Teresa Villiers said on 9.6.

The case for high speed rail is undeniable

What the various papers indicate....

The case depends entirely on an inflated projection of 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) The Command Paper says that while Birmingham may accrue economic benefits, “this is largely relocation of

It has the potential to make a huge contribution to

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 could provide a massive uplift in capacity It will only impact capacity at the very small number of stations it serves and even 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 significant benefits for passengers and the economy even in areas that are not directly served by a line or station.

Passengers from Coventry, Rugby and Milton Keynes will face less frequent services with more stops increasing journey times by up to 30 mins.