Skip to main content

Government fail to make economic case for HS2

Is HS2 (the proposed High Speed Rail link between London and the North) value for money?  A new report by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee says not - or at least that the government has failed to make a sound economic case.

The construction of the railway and purchase of rolling stock is estimated to cost up to £50 billion. The net cost to the taxpayer is expected to be £31.5 billion at 2011 prices over 60 years.  This is a costly project.  You would think then that a sound case had been made.  But the committee concludes that such a case has not been made.

The Government's principal justification for building HS2 is to provide capacity to meet long-term rail demand.  But the committee finds that  inadequate information on rail usage and demand modelling makes it difficult to determine whether this is correct. Overcrowding appears to be caused by commuter traffic, not long-distance traffic, and is exacerbated by inflexible pricing.

The main charge of the committee is that alternatives have not been considered, and the committee concludes it is impossible to agree with the Government that HS2 is the only solution to increase capacity on the rail network. Furthermore it argues that additional capacity could be provided by incremental improvements to the existing network, a new conventional railway line, or a new high-speed line (of which HS2 is only one option).

"These options have not been assessed equally, with only HS2 receiving serious consideration by the Government" is the damning conclusion of the committee.  It is even more abrasive when it considers the impact on the economy.

"We do not believe that the Government has shown that HS2 is the best way of stimulating growth in the country. While investment outside London is long overdue, evidence and experience from other countries has suggested that London would be the biggest beneficiary of a project such as HS2."

 The government has failed to listen to the concerns about the environmental impact and pushed on with the project without having made an assessment of the likely damage.  The did so arguing that the economic case for HS2 was overwhelming.  It isn't.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha