High-speed rail networks are fast train systems that connect major cities, providing a quick and efficient alternative to car and air travel. Proponents argue that it can reduce travel times, lower carbon emissions, and stimulate economic growth through improved connectivity. Opponents argue that it requires significant investment, may not attract enough users, and funds could be better used elsewhere.
Statistics are shown for this demographic
Parish
Response rates from 195 M1 voters.
67% Yes |
33% No |
67% Yes |
33% No |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 195 M1 voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 195 M1 voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from M1 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@9P6FP2L6mos6MO
No, Take the existing rail networks under public ownership and invest in them, bringing prices down.
@9P7K6HT6mos6MO
No, the UK is a small country and doesn't need high-speed rail. The government should nationalize and expand the existing rail network instead
@9QNKBXB5mos5MO
Yes, but only if fully regulated and if networks are built within an agreed time period. Should the rail networks fail to deliver the projects then these subsidies should be withdrawn and/or handed back.
@9QDVJWV 5mos5MO
This is a ridiculously expensive project now as we have failed to maintain the infrastructure. It would be an incredible benefit but there are more pressing priorities.
@9N3YQNB6mos6MO
Government should invest in improving the current rail services
@9N436MW6mos6MO
No, there should be subsidies to improve the capacity/frequency of the existing rail network
@sandeepc152 6mos6MO
Only if it is owned by a UK company. The subsidy should be removed if sold or operated by a country outside the UK.
@9N3T3866mos6MO
Yes only if these networks will be accessible to all and ticket prices will be affordable
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “High Speed Rail” news articles, updated frequently.
Join in on the most popular conversations.
