HS2 should be thrown in the dustbin

According to the Department of Transport (DfT) at the recent Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearing, the trigger for HS2 is that the West Coast main line is becoming more and more overcrowded. Upgrading an existing line is disruptive and expensive. It’s cheaper to build a new one. And that may as well be a high speed line, as it’s only slightly dearer.

The DfT’s Mr Rutnam was repeatedly asked how robust were the forecasts for passenger numbers. For him, they seemed to come out of some black box put together by the railway industry, and he seemed to have no idea how reliable they might prove, let alone of any sensitivity analysis.

It’s not as if the record of passenger forecasting is encouraging. Passenger forecasts for HS1 and the Channel Tunnel still aren’t being met. This matters: the Chunnel was built with private money, but the cost of HS2 would fall on taxpayers.

Even if the forecast for the numbers of passengers proved correct, it’s now agreed across the board the economic benefit of faster train travel has been overstated. £21bn of the £48bn of forecast economic benefits depend on the assumption that business people don’t work on trains! But obviously they do. Astonishingly, DfT has used survey data gathered between 1999 and 2001. Mobile communications have come on by leaps and bounds since then. And, as the HS2 Action Alliance say, “by 2026, when HS2 begins, mobile technology will have taken greater leaps forward”, so the benefits to business travellers will be even smaller. New technology advances may cut the need for train travel further.

And HS2 would charge premium fares. So the chief beneficiaries would be existing first class pasengers. HS2 would be a project for the élite, paid for by taxpayers. (Just like Concorde. Grandstanding ministers love one big showy project rather than lots of small ones which may have far better payback.)

We are given flannel about rebalancing the economy. The journey between London and Birmingham will come down to 41 minutes. How many London-based businesses will decide they can shut their Birmingham branch and service their customers there from London, asked MPs on the PAC. Answer came there none. But the government’s studies suggest HS2 would be used for more travel into the capital than out of it. So HS2 might increase London’s economic dominance.

It’s also suggested that infrastructure spending boosts the economy. But, suggests Simon Jenkins, “the boost will likely come during the next boom, when such reckless public spending will seem foolish”.

Assuming, that is, that taxpayers could afford it. Which we can’t.

The costings are also no good. They’ve just shot up from £34.5bn to £42.6bn, or £50bn+ including rolling stock. The DfT say the £34.5bn was a “high level desk-based exercise”. Everyone expects the costings to rise to £70bn or beyond. HS2 Action Alliance projects a 1:1 cost-benefit ratio. Expect a negative.

Hence the doubts about the public consultation. “Was it a fair consultation?” asked Chris Heaton-Harris. “Were you selling something for which the price tag has just gone up?”

Most notably, there’s been no proper comparison with alternatives. Would northern cities prefer urban transit systems? A new trans-Pennine link? an M65 extension? We’ve seen no opportunity cost analysis. New motorways, for instance, could be deliver up to five times more economic benefit than HS2.

This may make sense if the real aim is to avoid over-capacity on the West Coast main line. But even then Simon Jenkins – who has been on the British Rail Board – claims that

Every train pundit knows that the quickest and cheapest way to increase capacity is to re-engineer platforms, signals and rolling stock. The 2012 Atkins report on alternatives to HS2 (now forgotten) showed that redeveloping Euston could deliver a cost-benefit ratio of one to four – twice the [official] benefit of HS2.

With the numbers against HS2, and many interest groups opposing it – not to mention thousands of voters in the HS2 corridor – the most important contribution comes from Lord Mandelson, because he addresses the politics. In essence he has crafted in two pages a strategy for Labour to change its mind elegantly about HS2 and oppose it. Since HS2 makes no sense and hardly anyone supports it, this would be excellent politics. He cites massive disruption to many people’s lives from the construction, with the taxpayer having to meet all the costs. And many more considerations.

And Labour’s reaction to Lord Mandelson’s elegant and powerful strategy? Their transport spokesman turned it down flat. Politicians who don’t seem to be able to think.

Those votes in the HS2 corridor are still there to play for.