All those arguments are the same as the ones put forward when the M1 construction was proposed

The increase in traffic and congestion in London - what it will mean is that Euston which is only running at 60% capacity will be better utilised - we have the situation at the moment where there is a station running below capacity whilst the tracks it links to are at full capacity.

It won't stick to budget - on that basis no public projects would ever be started

It will only serve a small proportion of commuters - there is no reason why this should be the case - 'build it and they will come' - as was proven with the M1 - moving commuters from existing track will allow greater utilisation of this for freight which is being driven from the railways because of lack of capacity.

Money better utilised upgrading existing routes - exactly the same argument as put forward when motorways were proposed - where would we be now if all the A roads had just been changed to dual carriage ways leaving them running through towns and villages - in any case the existing routes are running at maximum capacity, increasing this by 25% may satisfy demand for the next ten or twenty years but what will happen then - a new proposal for an HS2 link???

Why can't the private rail owners pay - the current rail infrastructure is not in private ownership - Network Rail is a statutory corporation which doesn't pay dividends.

There are other things we could better spend the money on - I'm sure that for every proposal someone can always think of something that THEY believe the money could be better spent on!  If we followed that line of thinking then nothing would ever get built