Ah, now we have the nub of the objections, there's nothing in it for me, especially if the only benefit is to a few well off people. May we take it that you'd be perfectly happy if there was a benefit for the communities through which the line will pass? What benefit or change in HS2 projected ridership would you need to persuade you that it was worth building HS2?
Do you use the A41, the M1, the A5, The M40, the WCML into Euston, the Metropolitan or Chiltern Lines services into London, or any of the roads in the area? If you do, don't you think you're being just a little hypocritical in using forms of transport which if they were built today would invoke exactly the same response in the communities through which they pass as HS2 produces? Every generation has to make sacrifices for the benefit of future generations, a point that seems to be lost on the HS2 objectors. I love the Chilterns, I used to be taken there for pic-nics when I was a child, and take my girlfriends out for drinks in the pubs when I was able to drive. So I have very fond memories of the area, but I utterly refuse to believe that building HS2 will "destroy" it. Change some areas yes, but destroy, never.
I had lunch in a pub in the Chilterns a few weeks ago and asked the barman what he thought of HS2. He said that he couldn't understand the fuss, as the line was nardly near to the village.
Likewise the route through West Ruislip. When I was young it was used by Paddington trains as well as the GC route trains from the East Midlands. Putting HS2 through there will make it no worse than if those routes had remained in operation.
I don't want to live in a country that's preserved in aspic, unable to grow and evolve and take advantage of modern technology which is what the HS2 objectors seem to want. Equally I don't want progress to destroy the planet. I can't see HS2 destroying the planet, and it might just make a very small contribution to saving it if it helps get some cars off the road.