Review of HS2 must tell the truth about its real cost

The HS2 review is welcome and the panel is free to recommend not just changes to the scheme but scrapping it completely.

HS2, if it goes ahead, will on the Government’s reckoning cost £56billion (others claim more like £100billion) of taxpayers’ money. That money could be spent on other rail and road improvements, schools, hospitals or defence. So it’s vital this review is a lot more than window-dressing.

I don’t claim impartiality. The line would cut through my constituency and the heart of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. No other issue has aroused such passion locally in my 27 years in Parliament.

As I’ve dug into the evidence, my scepticism of the economic case has deepened. Yet I know that parliamentary colleagues, councils and business leaders in the Midlands and the North believe it essential for future prosperity. My constituents have said they would, with reluctance and sadness, accept HS2 if they were persuaded by evidence of national interest.

There are three key tests on which the review should be judged. First, a business case needs to be genuinely rigorous and independent. I want the panel to judge with an open mind the financial and economic assumptions to justify HS2. The original business case claimed economic benefits in time saved on travelling, which was assumed to be unproductive. I’ve always

thought the case was weak. More recently, HS2 officials suggested the trains may have to run more slowly than planned. That’s before taking account of how smart phones and tablets have enabled people to work productively on trains. Upgrading Wi-Fi on the main routes would be cheaper and more effective in improving economic efficiency.

Questions also need to be asked about passenger demand. The business case assumes both a massive growth in demand and that nearly 60 per cent of HS2’s passengers would shift from other rail services, with only eight per cent switching from road or air travel. Do these figures stack up? HS1, the Channel Tunnel route, has not yet attracted the numbers originally forecast.

The second test is to look seriously at potential alternatives. Shouldn’t better cross-country rail connections between northern cities, and new metro schemes, be a higher priority than new lines to London? The budget for transport, even if generous, is finite. As a country we need to be sure that we’ve got the priorities right.

Third, the review needs to be transparent. It has infuriated my constituents over the past nine years how difficult it has been to get cost estimates from HS2.

The fact Doug Oakervee, a former HS2 chairman, has been asked to lead the review has already caused some scepticism about independence. To settle the arguments the panel will need to be open with the public. That’s hardly unreasonable. After all, the public will have to pay for HS2 or any other scheme.