HS2 High-Speed Rail: Viability, Costs, and Controversy

Introduction to HS2 and High-Speed Rail in Britain

HS2, or High Speed 2, is a proposed high-speed railway expansion connecting London, the Midlands, and the North of England, with a potential later extension into Scotland. High-speed railways as a concept have been expanding across the EU since the 1980s. Germany, France, and Spain have been aggressive leaders in this field, operating on the belief that for Europe to be truly united economically, its transportation infrastructure must be robust enough to encourage travel both between countries and across longer distances within them. In Britain, the first high-speed line ran from London through the Channel Tunnel — a distance of 108 km. Britain's railway infrastructure dates primarily from the Victorian era, which limits operating speeds to no more than 201 km/h. Movement within Britain, and the need to travel to France, increased by more than 50 per cent since the 1970s, creating new demands on transport and commuting solutions (Atkins 2009).

While the concept of high-speed rail is endorsed by Britain's three main political parties, significant controversy remains over which cities should be placed on the route, the environmental impact of HS2, the railway's actual performance, the affordability of the project, and even whether it would reduce carbon emissions as claimed (Millward 2010). Most of the country agrees, however, that something must be done to improve inter-city links and reduce travel times across the country. According to Transportation Secretary Lord Adonis, the solution is straightforward: it is either high-speed rail or more motorways and more planes ("Cheap fast trains 'are transport future'" 2009).

Hypothesis: The HS2 project, while laudable in some areas of the EU, is not a viable option for the London to central and north Britain corridor, because the business case rests on unrealistic assumptions, the environmental impact remains inadequately assessed, and the strategic benefits are questionable.

Summary of Key Arguments and Evidence

The arguments regarding HS2 fall into three major categories: fiscal, environmental, and strategic. On one hand, the government's figures showed a reasonably manageable construction cost, based on comparisons with many previous smaller-scale projects that achieved quick paybacks. The economic reality, according to some critics, is that in a flattening economy, taxpayers are being asked to fund a project whose paybacks may not materialise until 2026 or later. In addition, many of the supporting reports fail to adequately acknowledge the difficult geographic features between London and Birmingham, and even more so at the proposed splits between Birmingham and Manchester and Birmingham and Leeds (Wendover Technology 2010).

The government also asserts that there is a considerable value-of-time argument to be made, given increasing commute demands. According to a government survey, 70 per cent of respondents believe their time is valuable enough to justify the cost of a high-speed railway. Crucially, it is not only the time spent travelling but also the time spent waiting for the next available service that must be factored into any assessment. Robust routes and fast trains alleviate this problem for most travellers, according to the government (Valuing the Benefits of HS2 (London–West Midlands) 2011).

HS2 would move not only passengers but also needed cargo and rail freight. Demand for freight transport is growing at an exponential rate each year, and the current railway system cannot accommodate the influx of new demand. The West Coast Main Line (WCML) is the busiest long-distance freight route in Britain and still cannot handle traffic from the Channel Tunnel, the Thames Ports, and the Midlands/North West region. This results in additional costs and time delays that are inevitably passed on to consumers. By using HS2, existing lines would be freed up to transport more cargo and lower-priority products, allowing high-speed lines to serve passengers and critical freight (Greengauge 2011).

The Government's Case for HS2

The government's position is that the past decade has produced a genuine renaissance in rail travel in Britain — passenger numbers increased by over 50 per cent and freight by 40 per cent. The factors driving this growth are road congestion, insufficient airport capacity, and growing environmental concerns. If these trends continue into the 2020s without significant intervention, Britain risks falling behind the EU in its capacity to grow economically. Major infrastructure projects — as demonstrated by the Channel Tunnel — take between 15 and 20 years to plan and construct adequately. Now, therefore, is the appropriate moment to invest in the future of rail in Britain. Doing so will protect the next two generations from facing even higher debt and a diminished standard of public services (Department of Transport 2009).

Conclusion

At present, there is simply not enough unbiased and persuasive data available to fully support the HS2 project as currently designed. Simply reducing the maximum speed to between 300 and 320 km/h would allow new trains or routes to use existing rails, saving millions of pounds and significant time. The environmental impact remains inadequately assessed, the business case relies on assumptions that critics find implausible, and alternative solutions capable of delivering results more quickly and cheaply have not been sufficiently explored. Until a more rigorous, transparent, and independent assessment is conducted — one that honestly accounts for geographic challenges, changing work patterns, environmental risks, and the full range of transport alternatives — the case for HS2 as proposed cannot be considered conclusively made.

References

Atkins, K 2009, Appraisal of Sustainability: A Report for HS2, viewed December 2011,

Bluespace Thinking 2010, A Review of High Speed Rail — HS2 Proposals, viewed December 2011,

"Cheap fast trains 'are transport future'" 2009, viewed December 2011,

Department of Transport 2009, Britain's Transport Infrastructure — High Speed Two, viewed December 2011,

Greengauge 2011, Capturing the Benefits of HS2 on Existing Lines, viewed December 2011, http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Capturing-the-benefits-of-HS2.pdf.

Millward, D 2010, 'Country campaigners call for high speed rail rethink', viewed December 2011,

Valuing the Benefits of HS2 (London–West Midlands) 2011, viewed December 2011,

Wendover Technology 2010, Financial Analysis of HS2 Stage One, viewed December 2011, http://stophs2.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Financial-analysis-of-HS2-Final.pdf.