HS2
Without HS2, T
hose looking to form their own view on HS2 are not short of information. A simple scan
of newspapers or a Google search will bring up reams of fact, fi ction and conjecture. The need, or otherwise, for the project has been a high-profi le media football for four years since the coalition government fi rst announced its commitment to the line in 2010.
However, in spite of ongoing questioning and scrutiny of the project from certain quarters, it has not faltered in the parliamentary and judicial process. In the most recent test of parliamentary support in November 2013, the Paving Bill passed resoundingly by 350 votes to 34. The scale of the victory does not, however, mean that obstacles do not remain.
It is therefore important that the case for HS2 continues to be made. It is also equally important to consider the consequences for Britain should we decide not to build it. In identifying what the country would lose if we abandon HS2, we can assess how crucial the project is for the UK. Let’s not lose sight of what the line will mean for millions of people up and down the country, from new long-term jobs, to the development of cutting-edge skills; from
52 | rail technology magazine Apr/May 14
can Britain ever hope to be truly connected?
Jim Steer, director of Greengauge 21 and co-founder of the High Speed Rail Industry Leaders Group, outlines the key messages in its new report.
closer socio-economic connections between our biggest cities to a renewed, more resilient, transport network.
But, without HS2, how can Britain ever hope to be truly connected?
It is with this in mind that the High Speed Rail Industry Leaders Group (HSR ILG) recently published a report examining exactly what Britain might look like if we fail to build HS2. Not only have we considered what would happen to the funding committed to the project, we also consider the consequences of cancellation for transport as a whole, for inward investment into the UK and, ultimately the wider UK economy.
The consequences for funding
If the project were to be cancelled, it would not be a choice for the transport secretary to decide how to reallocate the money. This task would be for Treasury. Only a fraction of the £42.6bn assigned to HS2 would probably be reallocated to the Department for Transport, with an even smaller fraction earmarked for the UK’s rail network.
As our report makes plain, it is more likely that the HS2 budget would be split between re-deployed capital expenditure on projects of a smaller scale, and on a write-down of national debt. There are no other transport schemes under consideration with the same scale of economic benefi t. Therefore the limited additional funds that might be allocated to the rail network – we calculated just £0.67bn over the period of close to 20 years of expected expenditure on HS2 – would be quite modest; especially if put in the context of the DfT’s spending programme of £73bn over the next six years.
The impact on transport
As well as this impact on funding, huge and irreplaceable benefi ts to the national transport system would be lost if HS2 were abandoned.
Some switch of investment to the main lines that HS2 would have relieved would be unavoidable given their capacity issues and their importance to the country and the network as a whole. With an increased call on investment monies for the main lines, there would have to be cutbacks elsewhere – on less
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208