Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Tom Harris (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 20 November 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill.


Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

I add a note of caution to my hon. Friend's comments. The environmental case for a high-speed line is often overstated and painted in black and white terms. Pushing any train up to significantly higher speeds takes great increases in energy, which has to come from somewhere. I return to the point that I made earlier. Connectivity cannot always be addressed by high-speed rail in a country the size of Britain. Given that the journey times between most of the major cities in Britain are already fairly modest, we are left with the conclusion that the main argument for new high-speed lines lies in the need to meet the increased expectation of higher capacity in the medium and long term. The Government are committed to considering that option. I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members in all parts of the House will accept that as a reasonable and mature strategy to pursue.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
467 c1125 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Construction Channel tunnel High Speed 1 line Investment Infrastructure Freight High speed trains Private sector Railway network Passengers Network Rail Train operating companies Regeneration St Pancras Station Eurostar London and Continental Railways Waterloo Station Stratford Station
Legislation
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk