Now the HS2 bill has been presented before Parliament it is important that all parliamentarians realise that the public in general have no confidence in the project.

The objections to this are manifold and, in particular, I would highlight the environmental concerns and the escalation in costs. However my principal objection is that we, the taxpayers who will fund this project, have been given a “take it or leave it” project by the Government. There are other options to consider.

HS2 is essentially designed for the well-heeled business traveller but nonetheless, like HS1 and equivalent lines in Europe and Japan, it will require massive ongoing public subsidy.

In other words, the average taxpayer will be asked to provide ongoing subsidy for a facility they will never be able to afford to use.

Travelling at 250mph is inevitably expensive and environmentally damaging because of the massive additional energy requirements and the need for a straight route. We know that alternative routes for a new link exist which would be far more environmentally friendly but might only enable speeds of 140-150mph.

Recently, the Transport Minister Patrick McLoughlin has been downplaying the need for high-speed and emphasising the requirement for increased capacity. In the light of this, it is essential for public confidence that viable costed alternatives are considered.

There are consultants promoting other projects which achieve increased capacity at far less cost. These include: upgrade the West, Midland and East Coast lines; build a line parallel to an existing line; build a line which does not need to be as straight and environmentally damaging as HS2; a mixture of the above.

Every time these ideas are discussed, the Government puts out exaggerated scare stories. This is bringing the whole project into disrepute and frankly the general public do not believe the spin we are given.

Dr Nick Jarrett, Marlow