This is a thoroughly political decision
The case against HS2, first announced more than 10 years ago, has been well rehearsed. Is a high-speed rail link really necessary in the absence of any coherent transport strategy? Don’t local schemes offer better value for money and more direct connectivity? Can additional passenger capacity not be provided by lengthening trains and improving existing lines? Do we really trust the predictions of regional regeneration? And is it really necessary to desecrate the countryside to shave a few minutes off travel times?
All these points and more have been made ever since the Labour government proposed a dedicated high-speed link between London and the West Midlands and then to Manchester and Leeds. These objections have been countered by supporters who say HS2 will increase overall capacity, create thousands of jobs and rebalance the UK’S economy, thereby stimulating growth.
Despite the vociferous campaign against HS2, there has been cross-party unity that it should proceed. The Coalition took Labour’s plans forward, and so did Theresa May’s government. What made Boris Johnson stop and think was the colossal increase in the projected cost from just over £32 billion in 2009 to more than £100 billion. Around £10 billion has already been spent buying up land and in preparatory construction work.
In the end, however, the Prime Minister’s decision to go ahead was guided as much by politics as economics. The strongest champions of the scheme are in the Midlands and the North, the areas that saw seats fall to the Tories in December’s general election. Indeed, in his statement, Mr Johnson emphasised the importance of the section beyond Birmingham, which some feared would either be delayed or abandoned. It would be part of a “transformative” transport strategy.
Faced with hostility to HS2 on his own back benches, he framed the project within the great tradition of British innovation and ambition: once we led the world in industrial and manufacturing developments yet today lament our creaking infrastructure and failure to keep up with the rapid advance of communications technologies. Just eight per cent of UK premises are linked up to ultrafast full-fibre broadband, one of the lowest proportions in the industrialised world. Improving these connections has become just as important as new rail and road schemes.