Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Your article on the proposed Channel Tunnel high-speed rail link and cheaper alternatives ("Cut-price rescue proposed for Channel Tunnel link", 10 February) suggests that the cheapest would "provide half the benefits for one third the cost". This seems to be based on an assumption that the journey time on the English part of the journey into Waterloo would reduce by 15 minutes, rather than by 30 minutes into St Pancras.
However, Waterloo is a much less accessible station for the majority of people in Britain than St Pancras. A rail passenger from anywhere north of London would be likely to save at least one hour's journey time by using St Pancras rather than Waterloo.The benefit to them of a higher- speed link to Waterloo is only one quarter of that of the high-speed link to St Pancras.
D R SMITH
Principal Research Officer
Central Policy Unit
Sheffield City Council
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments