HS2: National Boost or Overzealous

HS2: National Boost or Overzealous Spending?

When it comes to massively altering the transportational infrastructure of a city, it's important to examine all proposed changes with a fine-toothed comb. Luckily, this is exactly what has transpired in the case of HS2, the high speed rail proposed for Britain. As the authors of "Better than HS2" have pointed out, the very suggestion of a new high speed rail line in Great Britain has initiated a fierce and bitter controversy. This is not only expected, but necessary. Strong levels of controversy are crucial in helping to shed light on the various aspects connected to such an issue. An issue of transportation is something which can act as hindrance or shackle for a region or alleviate some of the burdens of the area, ultimately helping it to blossom. Superior forms of transport might excel in one city only to act as a major community obstacle in another. For example, the monorail in Seattle is useful for the city community and surrounding areas, but is not necessarily something that a city like New York could make good use of.

The loudest and most vehement dissenters to the railway generally found the bulk of their arguments from an economic point-of-view. Some say that the railway proposed represents an incredibly wasteful expenditure of money, money that can be better spent in a manner which betters the entire country in a more widespread fashion. Certain economic experts have strongly asserted that the case made on behalf of this railway is incredibly flawed and its skewed portrayal of the numbers is doing the country a profound disservice. "The business case for HS2 is very weak and has been based on a number of false premises. It fails to recognise that time spent on trains can be economically productive (so the boost to productivity it claims is overstated). It does not use a realistic comparator (so the benefit of reducing overcrowding is exaggerated). The required sensitivity analysis has not been done (so it does not say what would happen if the growth in demand falls, for instance due to new technology). There is little evidence that a new railway would bring regeneration or significant job creation. The claimed 'regeneration' jobs are unlikely to be new jobs and even the Department for Transport (DfT) say that most will be in London" (betterhanhs2, 2011). While this criticism is indeed heavy handed, it deserves to be scrutinized considerably. This argument needs to better elaborate a number of its claims, such as the exact false premises that the supporters of HS2 make and how exactly time on trains can be economically productive.

Finally, it appears to be underestimating the number of jobs that a new high speed railway really can create on a number of levels. High speed railways don't just initiate a renaissance of jobs directly in connection with the railway; they also create a substantial economic stimulus, by opening the door to opportunities for a range of other businesses -- such as cafes and retail shops that can open around train stations. Trains essentially create destinations along their routes, and these destinations become significant hubs of traffic, and the right businesses can intelligently exploit that foot traffic in the way that it needs to be in order to generate revenue for the economy.

Supporters for HS2 argue in the favor of logic: that consumer demand has been in favor of rail travel for a long time, particularly in the arena of long distance travel (HS2, Demand, 2011). However, these experts claim that these increased demands are only expected to grow given a flourishing economy, and without an adequate supply, conditions will transform for the worse for all: "Our forecasts continue the past growth, but generally at a more modest level than seen on average over the last 15 years. Long distance rail and air travel grow the fastest. There are plans to increase capacity on the rail network, and specifically the West Coast Main Line through train lengthening, resulting in just under a 20% increase in the number of seats. This is not nearly sufficient to meet the forecast growth in demand up to 2043. Without additional capacity, which is only possible with major investment, rising demand is likely to lead to significantly increased crowding. One of the principal objectives of High Speed 2 is to provide additional transport capacity to cater for this forecast growth in demand (HS2, Demand, 2011). Here, the argument is clear enough: it's a simple matter of supply and demand. If the railways are unable to meet the expanding demand of the consumer base, rail travel will become all the uncomfortable and inconvenient for all passengers (crowded). Rather than the train being a fast, relaxed way to travel long distances quickly, it will become a hassle or nuisance, making customers feel like they're fighting through mobs to their seats, or packed into the trains like sardines. This can only lead to a decrease in consumer support for the railways if such a scenario were allowed to unfold, something that would obviously hurt the economy in a lasting and substantial manner. The HS2 plans to meet the current needs of the market and be ready to meeting the ever-expanding needs of this ever-expanding market.

Those who support the HS2 also use the compelling argument of an increased quality of life, something which one cannot put a price on. They propose to increase quality of life by making travel, something which all people do, more convenient and relaxed -- essentially friendlier to the traveler. "HS2 between London and the West Midlands would affect people in different ways and the benefits are not limited to those travelling on the trains or areas surrounding HS2 stations. In most cases, it would create benefits for the individuals concerned. Examples include: journey time savings; reduced crowding; and, improved reliability" (HS2, Valuing, 2011). Quality of life can be a compelling reason to make a change in one's area, but for something like this, as those who support HS2 describe, it would require government investment in order to keep it going. Governments, for the most part, should be more concerned with the quality of life of their citizens, but are mostly more concerned with the bottom line. Yet, supporters of the HS2 swear that an expenditure of such a magnitude would actually end up eventually paying for itself.

One way it has been argued that the HS2 will improve economic growth is that it will lead to increased productivity at work. Employees won't be forced to suffer through long commutes, and will be more focused and ready to work when they do arrive at work (HS2, Valuing, 2011). Supporters also cite a reason that was alluded to earlier: the HS2 will drive economic growth by pushing developing (and jobs) to regions that are just more productive. "In the case of high speed rail, the centers of London and Birmingham, and their associated commuter locations would gain these benefits, as these locations provide a closer match between skills gaps (in certain employers) and availability of suitably skilled labour, and vice versa. This can enhance productivity, whilst in turn enhancing the earnings of those that benefit from such opportunities. This impact has not been quantified within the HS2 business case at this stage as the impacts are complex and dependent on wider factors" (HS2, Valuing, 2011). This is frankly to be expected. it's practically impossible to create a long distance railway without expecting each station stop along each separate route to be a hub of strong economies and fiscal progress. These stations draw people to them and with the people come the business. Obviously, it goes without saying that the new railway will need to hire a range of other employees, both skilled and unskilled -- from advertising designers to ticket sellers. The possibilities for job creation are truly endless.