A new government-commissioned report predicting a £15bn per year economic uplift as a result of building HS2 is the latest twist in a national debate that is becoming increasingly polarised.
KPMG’s study, commissioned by the Department of Transport, predicted that extra tax receipts amounting to £5bn a year would mean that the £43bn scheme pays for itself within nine years.
It gave a breakdown of the economic benefits for each HS2 city area and it found the scheme will give the Birmingham city region economy a yearly boost equivalent to 2.1-4.2% of its gross domestic product.
Once the full Y-shaped line is built, Manchester will see a 0.8-1.7% increase, Leeds will see a 1.6% improvement. However, the full economic boost would not be felt until 2037.
But KPMG’s study followed hard on the heels of a report from the Public Accounts Committee that questioned many of the government’s fundamental assumptions on HS2.
View of the line as it crosses Bridgewater Canal near Broomedge in Cheshire
The MPs on the committee argued that there was a lack of evidence to suggest HS2 would aid regional economies. Instead, it warned, the effect could be to concentrate economic activity into London.
And when CM invited CIOB members to add their views to the debate via LinkedIn, there was no more consensus among the membership than the population at large.
David Denton ICIOB subscribed to the “let’s build it” argument – adding that he’d like to see HS2 built as soon as possible. He wrote: “My view is simple – in principle HS2 is good, however, the time scale is too long, I would guess about half the current workforce will have retired by the time it’s finished. I would have also thought that getting freight onto trains should be a bigger part of the business case as it is very hard to know how business will be done in 30 years’ time. Who would have thought 30 years ago we would be able to make video calls from a small handset such as an iPhone?”
Sean Morgan, senior buyer at O’Hare & McGovern, also thought that freight was missing from the argument, and for him this was a deal breaker. “It seems to me that the amount of freight taken by lorries is increasing at an alarming rate. Surely trains would be cheaper but better? The fast train that is being proposed only goes to move people faster, although the argument seems to be that more people will be moved from place to place. But there is no mention, as far as I have read, of moving freight. Therefore I don’t endorse this proposal.”
But Richard Spedding, senior planning manager at Mace, suggested that freight hadn’t been overlooked. “The capacity freed up on the existing network will enable much more freight to be carried, and that is part of the business case. The platforms have just been extended to take 11 car sets, and the first class carriages do get used on certain services (morning and evening rush hours) so the business cases allow for the fact that they are on the system running empty during the day – but they will become fuller and fuller in the next 15 years.”
But then he addressed other factors missing from the debate so far. “One of the issues that hasn’t been factored in to the calculations is the lack of fossil fuels which will force us, in the sort of timescales we are talking about, to reduce the amount we use because (at least) of cost. Admittedly the acceleration of computer technology hasn’t either, and the ability to be with people at the other end of the country while at home or in some local office, may, and I stress may, limit the projected increase in passenger numbers. However, the rapid increase in population, both immigration and home-grown could offset that.”
In fact, Spedding concludes by saying that all the predictions are just predictions, so you might as well go by gut instinct. “I would rather have my taxes spent on a possible white elephant which gives us a tangible reward of some railway tracks, and which gives the country some strategic benefit, than one which just dissolves into thin air like a health service computer system that doesn’t work.”
Artist’s impression of Manchester Piccadilly station
David Carter sought to put HS2 in the context of previous infrastructure projects and the similar debates they raised. “Major infrastructure projects like HS2 do cause a tremendous amount of feeling both for and against. This one already seems to be on the way to far exceeding what happened with the Channel Tunnel rail link.”
But he also put the blame for the current uncertainty at the door of the government. “This is another example of the government not getting the correct message out from the beginning. The public did not accept this massive cost was justified by saving a few minutes time on a journey. One would ask why they didn’t think this very important description through properly to avoid what has now happened.
“Over the last two days we have had a report released by the government stating what massive benefits the country will have when this line is completed. Here again another clanger is that this report is not produced by anybody independent…”
Carter noted transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin’s switch to presenting HS2 as a “by-pass for the UK’s clogged arteries”. “What he is now saying is that this is all about congestion and he could have a point here. There have been comments… from people that know that to increase the capacity of the existing rail tracks and services is impossible. However, no money has been spent on researching this and maybe introducing track by-passes etc in certain places and so on. Double-decker trains had been ruled out because of the low bridges and tunnels, but if you’ve got £43bn to spend some of that would go a long way to changing it.”
Chris McKenzie-Grieve was also critical of the switch in the PR messaging, and called for more independent research. “Given the ‘cock up’ in terms of PR on why this is needed then we, the funders, would like some confidence that someone has really got the best assumptions and forecasts. Government track record on major projects is not particularly sparkling so you can forgive the public scepticism.”
“If this is a capacity problem, the new business case, then why are there so many first class carriages on trains from Birmingham/Manchester? A simple test for the capacity would be to convert these trains to standard class throughout. Then let’s test the capacity issue and have some real evidence that capacity is the issue or likely to be the issue. Another point is how much would it cost to extend the key platforms and have more carriages? Have any other options been considered and what was their business case?”
But Mace’s Spedding again made the point no business case or passenger numbers projection will ever be totally reliable. “Perhaps the most important thing to realise is that the timescales for capital projects are so long that it is not feasible to wait until the projections have been verified before starting to build. Therefore we end up with some white elephants. However not to do anything will mean that things grind to a halt, and 20/20 hindsight will have all sorts of people asking why something hasn’t been done before now!”
Where do you stand on the HS2 debate? Please post your comments below.
