HS2 in Hansard 28/02/2014

High Speed 2 Railway Line

Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport

for what reasons he approved the High Speed 2 route

via Crewe rather than via Stoke-on-Trent; and if he will

publish the quantitative and comparison data on both

options. [188725]

Mr Goodwill: HS2 Ltd set out route, station and

depot options for Phase Two of HS2 in their March

2012 reports, including why alternative options were

not taken forward to later stages of the process. The

options for serving Stoke-on-Trent directlywere considered

in these reports and were discarded due to engineering

complexities and a lack of demand for an intermediate

station in this location.

This led to the preferred route for Phase Two that was

subject of a recent consultation. This consultation closed

at the end of January and we are now considering

responses ahead of announcing a decision on Phase

Two by the end of the year.

Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for

Transport with reference to his speech to the National

Rail conference on 29 October 2013, entitled Why HS2

will spread prosperity, what alternative options his

Department considered to free up rail capacity; and for

what reasons it has been decided that High Speed 2 will

be the most cost-effective and economically beneficial

way to free up capacity as opposed to (a) doubledecker

carriages and (b) other capacity increasing

options. [188841]

Mr Goodwill: Since 2010 the Department has considered

a wide range of alternative options to a high speed

railway including the use of alternative modes, a

conventional speed line and upgrades to the existing rail

network.

Our most recent assessment of alternatives focussed

on enhancements to the existing rail network since these

are the closest in delivering capacity and journey time

improvements comparable to those of HS2. The alternative

schemes delivered lower benefits than HS2, failed to

deliver sufficient additional capacity, could not offer a

robust solution to the problem of poor performance

and would significantly disrupt services on the existing

rail network.

Advertisements