HS2’S costs must not outweigh its merits
The HS2 fast rail link between London, the Midlands and the North is an ambitious project for an ambitious nation. It is the sort of infrastructure scheme that we have become increasingly reluctant to embrace. Not only would it reduce journey times and increase capacity – it would also help address the economic imbalance between London and the South East and the rest of the country.
HS2’S strongest supporters are in the North, where the impact of this disparity is most keenly felt. Its greatest detractors, understandably, are among those people whose homes and villages will be blighted by the development. Their objections should not be enough to stop an infrastructure project of national importance; but this must be a question of costs and benefits. If the former get so great that they outweigh the merits then it must be right to think again, as Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, proposes.
When the project was announced by the Labour government in 2009, the estimated cost was £16 billion for the section from London to Birmingham and a further £14 billion to extend to Manchester and Leeds.
These were considerable enough sums at the time, not least as the country was in recession. Yet by last year the projected bill stood at £56 billion, and recent industry estimates suggest it could exceed £100 billion when and if HS2 is completed many years from now, making it the most expensive railway per mile in history.
By any measure this is an extraordinary jump in costs, given that the specifications are little different from when the line was finally given the go-ahead in 2011. Furthermore, it is astonishing to think that some £4 billion has been spent on the pre-project phase without a single sleeper being laid. Mr Shapps is right to want to know, on behalf of the taxpayer, precisely what this is going to cost and whether it is worth it.
What the Government must avoid is a halfway house, taking the line from London to Birmingham only and thereby losing the whole point of improving the connectivity of the North. Indeed, it would be better to start the line from the North to reinforce that rationale. The likelihood is, however, that 20 years from now the most important links for the country will be not in transport but in telecommunications networks. That is where investment is needed.