This week, the Government has announced its decision to give the green light to the first phase of HS2 to be completed by 2026. The high-speed line is intended to decrease journey time from London to Birmingham from 1 hour 24 minutes to 49 minutes and with its Y routes to Manchester and Leeds will cost a total of £33 billion. Reaction in the press has been mixed, with The Times calling for “full speed ahead”, while the Financial Times calls it “a white elephant from top to bottom”. On the basis of environmental considerations, the lack of a convincing business case, and above all the total absence of any strategic vision for an overall transport strategy, I am still in the FT camp. Why is this the case?
First, it is environmentally damaging. Transport Secretary Justine Greening has said that tunnelling or cutting could be used to mitigate the impact on the environment, with only 1.2 miles of the line in the Chilterns (which is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) to be above ground. However, Steve Rodrick, Chief Officer at the Chilterns Conservation Board, has said that “the tunnels could also affect drinking water supplies and the health of our rivers. The scale of environmental damage to this nationally-protected area would still be huge and unacceptable” (see the Buckinghamshire Advertiser on 10 January).
Second, the lack of a strong business case for the project is worrying. There is little sense that the Government has done an assessment of best value for money in terms of infrastructural improvement. The Financial Times leader on 11 January commented that the predicted advantages of the project are “less substantiated than one would hope”, because benefits to passengers are overstated. As the Daily Mail rightly commented “in an era of smartphones, laptops, Blackberrys and iPads, people work on trains anyway…The entire premise of HS2 is based on ignoring the fact that time spent on a train is not wasted”. As I suggest argued in my blog on 9 December, it would be much more forward-looking to ensure that scarce resources were used to ensure total coverage for access to mobile and broadband across the UK as a whole.
In this age, it is no surprise that examples of new high-speed rail on the Continent do not bode well either. The Dutch high-speed rail line which opened two years ago had to be saved from bankruptcy with a £250 million government bail out. Trains are running up to 85% empty, and it is losing £320,000 a day. This is the closest equivalent to HS2, with the Netherlands having a dense network of conventional rail services and relatively short distances between major cities. Yet, the Daily Telegraph has said that “the Dutch line has better prospects than the British one”, because flat countryside meant lower construction costs than drilling through the Chilterns, and the UK line has less prospect of significant international travel along it.
Looking to the Continent leads me to my third and most important objection, which is the complete lack of an integrated transport strategy in the UK (see my blog of 7 July). In France, Italy and Belgium, railways run alongside motorways allowing more coordination between road, rail and air. Why has more thought not been given to running a route up the M1 or the M40 - the original proposal of the Conservative Party? It is astounding that there is no thought to run HS2 past Heathrow until at least 2030. The Conservative Transport Trust has said that “only an HS2 alignment via Heathrow interchange, located on the Great Western Main Line as close as possible to the airport, and providing direct connections between high-speed rail, classic rail, Crossrail, the motorway network and Heathrow, can provide the connectivity that the UK requires” (see The Times on August 10 2011).
Looking at all of this, it is no surprise that already 100,000 people have signed a petition against HS2. Eighteen councils oppose the project, and one of them, Aylesbury Vale, is preparing a case for judicial review. There is still hope that the Government will amend its approach and have an integrated transport system with a coordinated rail and airport strategy and not try to plough a furrow through lines of Conservative supporters without any thought to the national best interest.
6 Responses to “HS2: Definitely on the wrong track”
James Elles makes many valid points about the problems with the high speed rail proposal his party is pushing through the UK parliament. It’s good to see Mr. Elles take a stand, but my question is what will he do? James Elles is our MEP in the European Parliament, and this is a UK domestic issue. Other than marshalling more discontent from the Conservative party members in the Chiltern region, I would like to see how he can use his position to affect the outcome. My worry is that his role has no power and influence here, as a member of the European not the UK parliament, but maybe he can prove me wrong?
By MARK EMANUELSON on Jan 14, 2012
If your Dutch is up to this (or you can get someone to translate)
http://www.politiekactief.net/artikelen/1111virtueelgeld.shtml
you will see that the problems of Fyra and HiSpeed go much deeper: accounting tricks to try to mask the real degree of loss which NRC Handelsblad reported as being €1bn, not €390m, and liabilities for noise insulation that haven’t been taken into account and materialise as the frequency of service increases.
By It doesn't add up... on Jan 14, 2012
Excellent article. I wish more Westminster MPs were as convinced about stopping HS2. There definitely has not been a properly argued case supporting this extravagant proposal for which there is no demand. Trains can have more carriages added to increase the number of passengers wishing to travel to London. That would be the first proposal. The second is to travel by Chiltern Line in 90 minutes from Marylebone to Birmingham. Third idea is that our Government should remember this country has a severe financial problem and we have no spare cash for a monumental folly
By Caroline Strafford on Jan 16, 2012
By sticking to the proposed route this government have compounded the time bomb placed by the last fiscally imcompetent Labour Government who thought it funny to leave a Treasury welcoming note to the effect ’sorry, there is no money left - good luck’.
The lack of a joined up transport policy means that the South West and Wales is automatically excluded from any high speed rail ideas, as is a smooth link via Heathrow.
I think it is a little suspicious that George Osbourne is in China one week after the Greening announcement - perhaps one item on the list is how much of HS2 will be built by the Chinese? My radar say perhaps something is cooking here……..
By chris howell on Jan 16, 2012
What I have found missing from the international comparisons is any evidence of economic benefit at a macro level. Lots of pictures of sleek trains going fast and business people smiling and enjoying the experience, but no evidence. The most dynamic western economy is the USA. No HSR and a conventional train system which is markedly inferior to ours with much bigger distances between major cities. On the other hand Spain has the most miles of HSR in Europe and has an unemployment rate of 22%! France, Italy and Japan aren’t exactly a byword for economic success. Where IS the evidence?
UK has a habit of going for mega projects at the wrong time. All the existing HSR networks around the world were planned before the internet era. Surely we should be saying thank goodness we don’t have to build HSR. We will put our investment into fibre optic connections for all.
By Philip Wootton on Jan 17, 2012
To argue that there is no case for this train and then say oh well why not stick it somewhere else instead is really bad. Not one minutes thought or consideration for those that already have to contend with the M40 that was foisted on them against their will and now we can have any old rubbish, HS2, wind farms because they can be sacrificed for the greater good. Hang your head in shame. It is obscene to be spending this amount of money to save a few people 20 mins of their time. move to where you work use skype and by the time this is built there will be more sophisticated ways of doing trade etc. Put more carraiges on trains, extend the platforms and run them more frequently. you can do it for the olympics, so why can’t youod it for the people that pay for a ticket but can’t find a seat bad planning
By VAL INGRAM on Jan 17, 2012