The call by the Institute for Public Policy Research for the proposed west-east high-speed rail route HS3 to be given priority over the north-south HS2 (Report, 8 August) is understandable but misplaced. As co-authors (along with the late Professor Sir Peter Hall) of the paper first proposing HS3, may we be allowed to respond.
HS2 and HS3 fulfil quite different functions. HS2 is designed to dramatically reduce travel times between Scotland, the north of England, the west and east Midlands and London and the south-east, and to tackle potential capacity shortages on the west coast mainline. It has been planned over the past decade in full detail, and phase 1 awaits final parliamentary approval by the end of this year. The confirmation of the detailed routes of phases 2A to Crewe and 2B to Manchester and Leeds is also expected very shortly.
In contrast, HS3 is still being discussed as an outline concept. It has yet to be sufficiently planned, even as a broad corridor on a map. We need to ensure that whatever detailed scheme emerges can fulfil the greatest number of functions in terms of efficiently and cost-effectively connecting the city regions of Liverpool, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Humberside and York and the north-east, bringing together their high-level labour markets. HS3’s planning is many years behind HS2’s.
To delay HS2’s construction so that HS3’s planning can be accelerated is unnecessary and could even put both at risk. The two schemes are complementary, and there would be no advantage to HS3’s planning in such a move. To delay HS2’s first phase would simply create uncertainty at a time when the UK economy needs exactly the opposite.
David Thrower
Professor Ian Wray
Department of geography and planning, University of Liverpool
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
.jpg?w=600)
