Roddy Graham, commercial director, Leasedrive, and chairman, ICFM
Is spending £42.6 billion on HS2 the best use of resources at a time when the road network is crumbling away and the rail network itself urgently needs modernisation of its lines and signalling infrastructure?
I don’t think so and that’s assuming the whole project – the first phase to Birmingham is due for completion in 2026 and the second to Manchester and Leeds in 2033 – is done on time and within budget.
Maybe if Lord Coe was in charge we might have more confidence, but even though Sir David Higgins, Network Rail boss and forthcoming chairman of the project, served on the Olympic Delivery Authority I doubt it.
And even he admits he doesn’t know whether it is realistic!
The argument is that HS2 will increase capacity in the south, connectivity in the north and regenerate the economy.
But at what cost? And how much over budget? The Commons Treasury Select Committee is not convinced by the cost-benefit analysis and considers it should be delayed until the Treasury has conducted a full review.
Already the budget has increased by £10bn and new high-speed trains at £7.5bn will take the whole project over £50bn.
What bid do I have that the final bill will be closer to £100bn given successive governments’ records for overspend? The Channel Tunnel project was 80% over budget!
Rail travel to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds is fast enough. Not so to Scotland or the west.
And, while the south east seems reasonably well served by rail networks, this is not the case in the north.
Centre for Cities research indicates that upgrading the lines between Bradford and Manchester and improving the trans-Pennine route would deliver hundreds of millions of pounds of economic benefits to the area around Leeds alone.
Meanwhile, the Asphalt Industry Alliance estimates the cost to councils of bringing our roads up to good condition is now £10.5bn, a fifth of the current cost of HS2.
What we need is more investment in our existing rail network, road network, in public transport and cycle routes.
We need to keep UK PLC on the move, not waste billions in the name of some national flag-waving exercise.
Bob - 03/12/2013 18:06
I;m sorry but this really doesn't ring true - HS1 was delivered on time and on budget, so was the Olympics when the full scope of the project was decided, as is Crossrail which incidentally costs around the same per-year as HS2. As for the increase in cost, most of that is an increase in CONTINGENCY, not the expense needed to build it. Of course journey times to Scotland and the West need improving, and as trains to Glasgow and Edinburgh will use HS2 while the Great Western Mainline will see journey times to the West cut by electrification and new trains - but what the rail network needs is more CAPACITY. The number of passengers carried by the railway network has DOUBLED since the mid 90's. Rail journeys have increased by QUARTER since 2007. Freight has also grown considerably. We need to cater for this growth on the railways, not fritter it away on roads when car use has plateaued and urban road capacity is unlikely to increase. The best way to do this is to free up the West Coast Mainline, the backbone of the rail network, for more freight, commuter and regional traffic by removing long distance intercity traffic onto a dedicated line - building it a high speed line only costs around 10% than a conventional line but could transform the economy, and so MUST be built.