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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

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

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,