Cancel high speed rail, UK government told
by Matthew Sinclair
The political story that the British government wants to spin is pretty simple – Conservatives in Buckinghamshire protest due to unfounded fears it will scar the countryside, brave political leaders press on knowing that the country needs high speed rail.
The reality is very different but simple too. The scheme is a big fat waste of money and not in the national interest. Politicians are ploughing ahead with a white elephant.
The business case for the line doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In the latest version, they have toned down their incredibly optimistic forecasts for rising demand. But they are using what economists call a fixed elasticity model to predict demand all the way out to 2043. Senior figures in the transport industry like Sir Rod Eddington have worried about using those models for forecasts of anything more than a decade in the future before.
They still rely on the idea that people do not get any use out of their time on the train. It makes sense that people are less productive than they could be in the office, but the idea they do not get anything done is unrealistic, particularly with advances in mobile communications.
The government's line is that this is not critical as they will reduce overcrowding, and make it easier for people to work on the train, but more affordable alternatives – one imperfect alternative not given a fair hearing, called RP2, is contained in the consultation document – will mean even less overcrowding.
Not properly considering those alternatives, not using a proper comparator, is the final big flaw with the HS2 business case. You just can't work on the basis that without HS2 the network will get no improvements for 30 years and that even improvements operators are already planning do not go ahead.
Despite all those assumptions flattering HS2 in the business case, it still does not look great. The ratio of benefits to costs does not match up to the standard normally expected of road projects, for example. The project is not good value.
We have seen these kinds of mistakes before. Research by Danish academics in 2006 found that "for nine out of ten rail projects, passenger forecasts are overestimated; average overestimation is 106 per cent." When the Public Accounts Committee looked at HS1 they reported that the Department for Transport had told them "next time it considered undertaking a major transport project, it would factor more severe downside assumptions into its business case analysis".
HS2 is expected to cost well over £1,000 a family. It would be incredibly irresponsible to go ahead if the business case does not stand up.
It would also be unfair. Long distance train journeys are mostly enjoyed by the well off. 47 per cent of those journeys are taken by those in the top income quintile. With all the strains that the public finances are likely to be facing for some time, can we really spend a fortune on high speed rail for a fortunate minority of passengers while everyone else faces cuts and higher taxes?
Some towns will get a worse service. Coventry for example will go from three trains to one train an hour and it will be slower. The government claim that will not happen, that those plans are at early stages, but there is no way it will be commercial to maintain the same service to Coventry if it is not also carrying passengers to Birmingham, and their business case includes a total of £5.4bn in savings from reducing existing services. If that does not happen, HS2's cost to taxpayers will be even higher.
It is often said that we need high speed rail to keep up with other countries building it. But the Netherlands are regretting their programme which is facing bankruptcy. The Americans have largely given up on theirs as states balk at the likely need for expensive subsidies long into the future. The Chinese ministry responsible has racked up a $200bn debt and the minister has been arrested.
We have reached the stage of "me too HS2" where governments are behaving like jealous neighbours. They buy expensive garden ornaments to show off instead of thinking about what they really need around the home.
Voices ranging across the ideological spectrum from the Green Party to the TaxPayers' Alliance to the Conservative competitiveness guru Simon Wolfson have lined up to say that this scheme doesn't make sense. The government need to listen and cancel it.
Matthew Sinclair is director of the TaxPayers' Alliance
Mr Sinclair's case against HS2 is as flimsy as the government's business case he denounces. And he conveniently neglects to mention the success of high speed lines in France, Spain, Italy and of course Japan.
He argues against predicted passenger numbers -who can really predict those anyway - instead, of focusing on the overall economic benefits that HS2 would bring to the Midlands and NW England, and the fact that business leaders in those areas wholeheartedly support the project.
I live nowhere near the proposed route, but would be happy to see £1,000 of my money being spent on the biggest improvement to the rail network north of London in my lifetime - over 50 years - rather than on yet more motorways and by-passes.
And it's about time supporters of HS2 were given as much publicity as the vociferous and well-connected minority against it. But then it wouldn't be much of a story would it?
PM - Newark, England
What prejudiced rubbish.
TH - Bournemouth
PM takes a high-risk view. He agrees the government's business case for HS2 is flimsy and demand is unpredictable, yet is happy to commit his - and other taxpayers' hard-earned money - to a £33bn project, when the country is struggling and inflation is hitting the consumer purse.
There's plenty of pro-HS2 publicity around and a reasoned public debate is absolutely necessary for such a massive public spend. Not sure why by-passes are a bad idea, though.
SY - Herts. UK
At present, 10,000 per day travel to and from London to Birmingham, you think if the trains are half full in the 17 hours a day this will increase to 6000 per hour, 102,000 per day on HS2?
E.H. - southam warks
If it is implemented in full and successfully integrated with other transport infrastructure, high speed rail can bring growth and prosperity to the United Kingdom, writes Rhian Kelly
