HS2 not the best value rail option, says government report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/14/h...P=FBCNETTXT9038

 

Critics of High Speed 2, the planned £33bn fast rail link between London and the north of England, have been bolstered by a report commissioned by the government and quietly published the day the project's go-ahead was announced. The report, by engineering firm Atkins, estimates the project offers a far poorer return on the taxpayers' investment than an alternative scheme aimed at improving existing lines and services.

In a separate development it has been disclosed that Cheryl Gillan, the Welsh secretary, sold her home in Amersham 500 metres from the proposed route two months before the project was approved. An aide said the sale, which leaves her without a constituency home, was necessary because her elderly husband had difficulty with the stairs.

 

Atkins was asked by the Department for Transport "to appraise a set of strategic alternatives to the government's overall proposed high-speed rail strategy for a Y-shaped network linking London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds". The report concludes that a more modest counter-proposal, known as "51m" – referring to the amount critics of HS2 claim the overall cost of the high-speed project represents for each parliamentary constituency in the UK – would give a significantly greater return on investment.

 

It estimates that 51m's proposals to increase long-distance capacity on the west coast main line by lengthening the trains to 12 cars, reducing the number of first-class carriages and running additional peak long-distance services, offered the taxpayer a return of £6.06 for every pound invested. In contrast, the government's official advice is that HS2 will deliver a return of between £1.80 and £2.50 for every pound invested. If the analysis is restricted only to HS2's London to Birmingham route and strips out its wider economic benefits, the benefit-cost ratio falls to 1.4 – below what the government believes is acceptable to justify investment.

 

The former transport secretary,Philip Hammond told the transport select committee: "As rail projects go, a benefit-cost ratio of 2.6 is quite reasonable. If it were to fall much below 1.5, I would certainly be putting it under some very close scrutiny."

 

Critics say much of the government's case for the project's economic contribution is based on the debatable premise that few people work while on trains. The revelation that a government-commissioned report suggests there may be more attractive rail projects than HS2 will give the critics fresh ammunition as they also question claims it will deliver one million jobs by 2020. "There's spin and there's complete fantasy," said Bruce Weston, director of HS2 Action Alliance, which opposes the project and drew up the 51m alternative. "A million new jobs from HS2 is pure fantasy."

 

The transport secretary, Justine Greening, said: "HS2 will deliver up to 26,000 more seats for rail passengers each hour and journey times slashed by as much as half. By attracting passengers off existing rail lines, roads and domestic air services, its benefits will be felt far beyond the network. No amount of tinkering with our Victorian rail infrastructure will deliver this leap in capacity."

Weston said Greening's decision "is not even based on the facts in her own report – it's despite them".

 

The view is likely to be shared by Lord Astor, father-in-law of the prime minister and chairman of the Old Berkshire hunt, who said the west coast upgrade was a "perfectly viable alternative" to HS2 that would be "cheaper and faster to take effect".

 

A Department for Transport spokesman said a report found the 51m alternative did not deal with long-term overcrowding on the west coast main line and would cause delays.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is nothing to do with "NIMBY"-ism, I've nothing against the idea of upgrading rail infrastructure, but it would appear that the Govt, and in particular Justine Greening, is being enteirely dishonest about the viability of alternatives.. In short, the Govt is lying... Big surprise there, then.... :lol: :lol:

 

The wider question however is, why on earth should the tax-payer foot the bill for HS2 anyway, isn't the rail network supposed to be privatised..? Why aren't the private rail companies ponying up the the cash...? Isn't the country supposedly skint..? What's with all the talk of "austerity" for the ordinary people when the Govt is pumping massive amounts of public money into a bloated project which doesn't even appear to be anywhere near as economically viable as they're making out that it is....?

 

I think Ms Greening has some serious questions to answer....

Actually, this so called alternative would cause half the rail network to be closed for a significant amount of time while these upgrades went ahead. It would lead to lengthy delays, many cancelled services, poor availability of track for freight and would cripple the rail network.

 

That crippling would cost the British Economy more than HS2. I personally am for the rail link. It's something we need.

Actually, this so called alternative would cause half the rail network to be closed for a significant amount of time while these upgrades went ahead. It would lead to lengthy delays, many cancelled services, poor availability of track for freight and would cripple the rail network.

 

That crippling would cost the British Economy more than HS2. I personally am for the rail link. It's something we need.

The cost of that disruption does seem to be missing from the assessment which makes the anti-HS2 case just as misleading as the case in favour. It also fails to acknowledge that an upgrade to the existing line is unlikely to have any impact on air travel whereas HS2 should reduce it.

 

The line is also due, eventually, to link up with the Channel Tunnel. That means potential direct trains from Birmingham to Paris and Brussels and possibly beyond. By the time it opens there should be services running from London to Amsterdam and Cologne and there is no reason why some of them shouldn't be extended to Birmingham. The only pity is that the European link is not due to be part of the first phase.

The cost of that disruption does seem to be missing from the assessment which makes the anti-HS2 case just as misleading as the case in favour. It also fails to acknowledge that an upgrade to the existing line is unlikely to have any impact on air travel whereas HS2 should reduce it.

 

The line is also due, eventually, to link up with the Channel Tunnel. That means potential direct trains from Birmingham to Paris and Brussels and possibly beyond. By the time it opens there should be services running from London to Amsterdam and Cologne and there is no reason why some of them shouldn't be extended to Birmingham. The only pity is that the European link is not due to be part of the first phase.

Salmond is very keen for the link to extend to Edinburgh and Glasgow which would create a pan European High Speed Rail link and actually reduce the dependence on Air Travel.

The article highlights that the plans need to be closely scrutinised as the current proposal doesn't seem to be particularly efficient with money; I do love the idea of a high speed network running from mainland Europe through London to Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh / Glasgow though. It seems like the only way of cutting air travel (and long distance car journeys to a lesser extent).

 

I do however have a serious problem with the taxpayer footing the bill for it. I'm not in favour of rail privatisation anyway, but if it's a privately run scheme then why the hell should it be propped up by government spending? Where IS the money that these companies earn actually going if they're asking us to pay for line upgrades?