HS2 is over-budget, unpopular and unjustified. Stop pouring billions into it
Major rail projects have an appalling record. They typically end up costing far more than predicted, open years late and fail to deliver the promised benefits. By the time the scale of the disaster becomes obvious, the politicians responsible have left office, leaving taxpayers to pick up the bill.
Transport economists have long raised concerns that High Speed 2 (HS2) is likely to follow the same pattern. Report after report has warned that the project is high risk and poor value for money. The assumptions behind its business case have been taken apart and compelling evidence presented that the full costs have not been included in the official budget. In a new blow to the scheme, it was revealed last week that a document prepared for the Government in late 2016 warned that HS2 is “fundamentally flawed” and likely to overshoot its official budget by 20-60 per cent. The final cost could reach an astounding £90 billion.
Disturbingly, it was also suggested that these damning conclusions were not disclosed to MPs before they voted on the scheme. This is just the latest evidence for a culture of secrecy surrounding HS2. Last month, a former senior manager accused officials of covering up massive overspends on the project’s property-purchase programme.
If transport officials are indeed aware that HS2 is in trouble, then their strategy appears to be to kick the can down the road, bequeathing these challenges to their successors and postponing ministerial embarrassment for as long as possible. It’s a bad sign that several senior executives have recently left their positions at HS2.
Given the scale of the problems, it seems baffling that ministers remain so strongly wedded to the scheme. Opinion polls suggest HS2 is not popular, and the economic argument is weak. The benefits would certainly be far greater if those tens of billions were redirected to investments with higher returns, such as building bypasses around bottlenecks on the road network. As it stands HS2 will absorb a large chunk of transport investment over the next 15 years, misallocating resources on a vast scale.
The economic case for HS2 never did make much sense, which explains why the rationale for the project keeps changing. Initially, its promoters focused on faster journeys for business travellers. But the relatively small improvements didn’t justify the enormous cost, particularly since new technology makes it easier than ever to work productively on trains.
Then HS2 became all about capacity, with ministers claiming existing railways were “full”. But the line into Euston is one of London’s least overcrowded. If tackling overcrowding were the real priority, then other, more congested routes would get the investment first.
Building an expensive new railway would also be the last resort. It is far more cost-effective to improve the capacity of existing infrastructure by running longer trains, improving signalling and using flexible pricing to smooth out demand.
More recently, the emphasis has FOLLOW
Richard Wellings on Twitter @RichardWellings
at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion shifted to regeneration. It is claimed HS2 will transform the Midlands and North, helping to address the northsouth divide. But the evidence to support this is weak. Doncaster has enjoyed fast rail services to London for decades, yet remains one of the poorer towns in the UK. HS2 will effectively make Manchester and Leeds as close to London as Birmingham is today, yet on many economic indicators Birmingham performs badly compared to those northern cities.
Travel times to London are far less important than other factors such as skill levels in the labour force. And evidence from other countries suggests that high-speed rail schemes can drain economic activity from the regions to the capital city. Economic logic therefore suggests the best option would be to cancel HS2, with the savings reallocated. About £3 billion has already been spent and a large amount of political capital invested, but there is no excuse to throw good money after bad.
A face-saving compromise might replace Phase 2 (Manchester and Leeds) with upgrades to existing lines and pare back Phase 1. Cuts to the latter could include terminating HS2 at Old Oak Common rather than Euston, abandoning the spur into Birmingham, lowering top speeds and deploying existing rolling stock rather than brand-new trains.
The recent leaks suggest HS2 is at high risk of becoming one of the worst government project disasters in British history. Fortunately ministers still have time to get transport policy back on track.
Dr Richard Wellings is head of transport at the Institute of Economic Affairs
Gary Lineker is making a gesture. Having campaigned for Remain during the 2016 referendum, he’s decided to reverse his shortlived acceptance of the result and is now campaigning for Remain again. It’s been portrayed as an inspiring and principled act, even though it represents the opinion of virtually everyone in the television industry and therefore requires no personal or professional sacrifice whatever.
Across Twitter, “celebrities” are issuing tweets – some mordant, some bellicose, all self-aggrandising – claiming that “nobody voted for this Brexit shambles” and that a People’s Vote is the only option. Brexiteers like me need saving from ourselves. You see, we “didn’t know what we were voting for” – unlike the presenter of Match of the Day. Where would we be without our Left-wing celebrity class?
Arguably, happier – and more diverse. The Left’s domination of popular culture is a recent phenomenon: at the height of Thatcherism, things were quite different. Celebrities were queuing up to be seen with the Iron Lady, as a 1987 victory party guest list recently revealed. Eric Sykes, Paul Daniels, Judith Chalmers, all were considered supporters, members of a conservative movement that stretched across the entertainment industry.
At the 1978 Tory conference, Lulu sang “Hello Maggie!” to the tune of Hello Dolly. Thatcherite celebrities
Government documents reveal that HS2 is likely to overshoot its official budget by 20-60 per cent. The final cost could be an astounding £90 billion
Thatcher’s famous backers knew what socialism looked like. Producers would be halfway through filming when the unions took action. The lights went out; the show did not
at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion