A controversial subject that keeps cropping up now and then in the media is the planned construction of a new High speed (225mph) rail link between London and the North. It shall be constructed in two stages – London Euston to a new station in Birmingham (Curzon Street). Construction would start in 2017 and have trains running by 2025. The latter half of the track is a planned link to Manchester and Leeds and is known as the ‘Y’ section due to its shape.The cost? In the area of £30bn.
The question is this: Is it really worth it?
There’s not much padding that can be added, so I want to jump straight in and grind some facts together. Or try to. Both sides seem to have questionable facts supporting their arguments and it’s difficult to see the woods from the trees. I’ll be brief in addressing each issue. I fear it’s too easy to get bogged down with statistical mud slinging when the conclusion is quite simple.
The main justification for the large investment costs is the economic benefits that will be gained from it.
“According to the document, the economic benefit of the first phase would equate to £2 for every £1 spent”
A worthy return in the long run – in theory. There have been doubts over these figures. The problem is there are so many knock on effects from effective transport like this (especially in the Y section) that it is hard for anyone to accurately predict the effect it will have. The side against HS2 argue that the figures are too false and don’t give an accurate representation. The yes side have little to back up or give as concrete evidence to counter act the argument.
Perhaps an easy comparison to draw is to Europe. Their rail service has gone under various investments in different nations over the years, and can be seen to be an effective service and something to strive for. In this sense we lag behind – France, Germany and Switzerland all touting high speed rail services. If we fail to invest and act now, where will we be in 30 years time? Lagging behind still. The opportunity to upgrade will have passed and the time that it takes to perform such a major operation will be too long for the benefits to be truly reaped.
One common complaint is that the network is under huge strain currently and that the focus should be on this. Introducing a new system may help ease this strain allowing for work to be performed but still a service maintained.*
With an increasingly mobile and expanding population, infrastructure needs to be upgraded. If rail is not fully embraced, then we must increase motorways/road network (an unwise choice considering the direction petrol is heading and no suitable alternative in sight). Out of the two, rail is far greener, quieter and more sightly. While HS2 may ‘only’ be carbon neutral, the effect that increasing a reliance on cars will cause isn’t exactly ideal. Perhaps the main advantage would be between Manchester/Leeds to London – people will choose rail travel over air travel, which is always a good thing environmentally.
It is not simply a question of do we want HS2. It is a question of we need a newer, improved infrastructure and what do we want from that. More roads? airports?. It is the sensible and reasonable option to have rail as a valid solution to infrastructural needs.
While it is an avoidable consequence that villages and communities will be disrupted, we need an alternative to cope with increased traffic and we need a modern infrastructure to deal with it. There will be some issues along the line yes, but it is necessary for the greater good. The complaints of small communities are valid, but so are the needs of the nation. In the past sacrifices have been made, and people seem okay with having trains currently running around the countryside.
There is one major crux that causes me to doubt the effectiveness of HS2 however. I support the idea, but the pragmatic implementation and use of, is the issue.
It will depend on how affordable the tickets are. There is no point building a £30bn railway and having a situation where tickets are £100 Birmingham to london – people will simply go for cheaper, slower routs and avoid using HS2, meaning that it isn’t a viable option and all the points it was built for are neglected. A rail system needs to be accessible to and for everyone.
*That said, we need to address the issues with the system that everyone already uses. The time to get from B’ham to London is decent enough already. People can still work on the trains – however make sure the trains are running smoothly in the first place before building a new high speed link. The case for the Y section is much greater in my view, with getting to the north quickly currently an issue. The issue that the current system is plagued with should be addressed before we build a larger shiny one, the likely hood is people will be priced out of HS2 to use it as a valid strain-release.
In regards to the Y route, the main benefit would be from the North to london anyway – from 2hr20 down to 1hr 20 from Leeds to london. It is the same with the Birmingham route, but the phase 2 HS2 route would cut an hour off. The same can be seen with Edinburgh. Clearly phase 1 is not as effective as phase 2, and huge amounts of money could be saved and diverted to improving the current rail system already in place.
There is also a suggestion for improving the national network already – Rail package 2, often supported and highlighted by the No HS2 campaigns. It would increase the service run across the country (nationally, rather than affecting economic benefits for a specific area) for £2bn – a much smaller price tag. The cost would be felt in added disruption, however.
I am undecided on HS2. I would like to support it. I love rail travel, and think that it is in the national interest to invest and expand our rail network as an effective and green plan for the future. However, there is already an effective enough highish-speed route Lon-Birmingham of around an hour. The real issue that needs to be addressed is the latter half of the proposal in linking the north and south with effective travel. This would provide the greatest improvement for the greatest amount of people with the least cost. The main sticking point is that I do not believe that the tickets would be affordable for the every day user if the full scheme is adopted. Nor can I see the trains hitting full capacity or their carbon neutral targets. I take the benefits in that it will reduce reliance on cars and air travel, and wish to spread these throughout the nation in an national level of rail travel improvements rather than focusing on a single issue – either through Rail Package 2 or through simply diverting the proposed cash to alternate areas such as general improvements.
My thoughts are this: Delay and continue to look into phase 2 of HS2 alone. In the mean time focus on improving current rail infrastructure so that the services are more widely used and greener, and more accessible to everyone. Once the current system is working at its optimum then link the north to the south through high speed travel. I do not strictly oppose HS2. Merely wish to see an improvement across the board first, rather than on a specific service.
Your blog is interesting and although you have tried to be as balanced as possible I feel I must raise one or two points.
First off all you state RP2 will have benefits nationally were as HS2 will not. However this is not the case. HS2 will service the north all the way to Glasgow from day 1 utilizing the WCML and classic compatible trains the following map was created using government data http://bit.ly/gSD4mY it shows that HS2 will serve many destinations and improve times across the north before the Y section is built.
RP2 on the other hand has very limited benefits and only upgrades small sections of the WCML, with money diverted to upgrading Manchester and Euston stations. At at cost of £3.6bn + £1bn for rolling stock as capital which give the best BCR RP2 not £2bn is actually quite costly. And leaves absolutely no extra capacity for freight which is much needed now and more so in the future.
I’m sure an critic will come along a rebut what I have written but the unquestionable facts are as follows. RP2 with the best BCR will cost £4.6bn not £2bn, RP2 only releases and extra 4 trains per hour from the busiest southern sections of the WCML, RP2 has no allowances for freight, HS2 will serve the North West and Scotland from day 1.
Indeed, which is why I approve of HS2 in the northern cities, I’m just doubtful on whether or not the full use of the Birmingham to London route will be realised and if it can be justified.
Frankly any improvement on a national level is good, and an increase of 4 trains an hour sounds good to me. The cost of £4bn Is still relatively low to that of a full HS2 of £30bn, or even a part HS2 which is £17bn. Factor in the expectation to go over budget and over time and its vailidity becomes shakey at best.
My main contention is still ticket prices. I’d perhaps be more willing to support HS2 if I knew that I would be able to afford to use it.
Indeed and the fact is no one, on either side of the argument can predict with any degree of certainty what kind of fare structures will prevail on services utilising HS2.
What we do know already are the following facts/extrapolations;
1. Using HS1 and the domestic services it provides with those likely to operate on HS2 is comparing apples with pears. The Javelin services on HS1 were very much a premium upgrade to existing services and the market was nowhere near as mature. The WCML is an extremely busy rail artery facilitating tens of millions passenger journeys per annum; demand that is relentlessly rising year on year.
2. HS2 will provide huge capacity increases. Implementation of HS2 will massively boost one side of a basic supply/demand equation – whilst it’s valid to assert that ultra peak business hours demand on the new line will almost certainly attract a hefty premium (in just the same way as it does on the existing WCML and ECML routes) this means large numbers of seats on offer outside this relatively small window. Therefore I think it is reasonable to claim, contrary to some of the more hysterical anti-HS2 campaign group forecasts, HS2 is likely to depress overall average ticket prices, rather than inflate them?
3. HS2 will be constructed to European Interoperability standards, unlike any of the suggested upgrade alternatives. This factor alone will facilitate direct competition on the same line from and between mainland Europe based providers. If demand levels are sufficiently buoyant we could see, in addition to Eurostar, the likes of Deutsche Bahn (ICE), SNCF (TGV), SNCB (Thalys), NS Hi-Speed (FYRA) and even RENFE (AVE), Italo and Trenitalia offering services on HS2. This robust competition will also have the likely effect of driving prices down whilst improving quality, connectivity and reliability.
In summary, provided High Speed Rail policy/strategy is seen through to its conclusion in a robust manner, the long term benefits accruing to UK plc and associated users of the services HS2 (and hopefully HS3, 4 & 5 thereafter) will provide, are manifestly obvious for all to comprehend?