High Speed or a seat?

Adonis and little Theresa are agreed on the need, at a huge cost, for a high speed rail link to hurtle people up t'North. No doubt the price of a seat will be prohibitive to most people. I don't understand the rationale behind the proposal. The proposed route goes nowhere near Heathrow, which was to be expected given the geography and cost that would be involved. So the idea that the new high speed route will cut out many short-haul flights is demolished. The proposed route will not deal with the capacity issues at Heathrow and is not an alternative to a third runway. One reason people travel on short-haul flights is that it is often cheaper than rail travel.

It would be far better to use the £41 billion high speed rail will cost to improve existing routes and put back capacity lost over the last fifty years - putting down tracks ripped out years ago and re-opening closed routes. Already track is being re-instated along existing routes to increase capacity and a few closed lines have re-opened. We need much more of this, rather than high speed routes. Given the advances in IT technology we won't need to be hurtling around the nation to meetings.

One problem the proposed high speed route won't overcome is the severe overcrowding on railways in the south. The London- Brighton line is almost at saturation point and the same is true of the line between Sevenoaks and Orpington.

I note that Kent County Council hasn't any policy/plans which remotely deal with this issue of major significance to West Kent. Will the Great Leader enlighten us?