Reports highlight challenges for HS2

High profile reports published this week demonstrate the scale of the challenge for HS2 Limited.

Bernadette Ballantyne
26 March 2015

Twitter FacebookLinkedIn

Print

Topics 

HS2

This week two different Parliamentary Committees set out challenges to HS2 Ltd, the promoter of plans for the UK’s second major high speed rail line. First the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee questioned the cost effectiveness of the £50bn High Speed 2 as the solution to increasing North-South rail capacity and rebalancing the economy.

And the following day the High Speed Rail Bill Select Committee for phase one of the scheme between London and Birmingham published its first report on the hybrid Bill’s progress and in doing so called for a number of changes to current proposals.

In its report entitled “The Economics of High Speed 2” the Lords Committee called on government to provide better evidence that the project was worthy of the £50bn investment figure, of which £31.5bn will come from the public purse.

“In terms of rebalancing, London is likely to be the main beneficiary from HS2. Investment in improving rail links in the North of England might deliver much greater economic benefit at a fraction of the cost of HS2” -  Lord Hollick

“HS2 will be one of the most expensive infrastructure projects ever undertaken in the UK but the Government have not yet made a convincing case for why it is necessary,” said Lord Hollick, chairman of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee.

“The Committee are supportive of investment in rail infrastructure, but are not convinced that HS2 as currently proposed is the best way to deliver that investment. The Government are basing the justification for HS2 on two factors – increased rail capacity and rebalancing the UK economy; we have not seen the evidence that it is the best way to deliver either.”

The report also pointed to a number of problems with the current analysis including a lack of transparency over existing passenger data, a lack of assessment of alternative ways to increase north south capacity and evidence from overseas that showed that capital cities were the main beneficiaries of high speed links.

“In terms of rebalancing, London is likely to be the main beneficiary from HS2. Investment in improving rail links in the North of England might deliver much greater economic benefit at a fraction of the cost of HS2,” said Lord Hollick.

In addition the committee said that the government’s refusal to provide current rail usage figures citing commercial sensitivity made it difficult to assess future demand forecasts and the claims that there are long distance capacity constraints.

“The investment of £50bn investment of public money demands nothing less than full transparency,” said Lord Hollick. “We have set out a number of important questions on HS2 that the Government must now provide detailed answers to.  Parliament should not approve the enabling legislation that will allow HS2 work to begin until we have satisfactory answers to these key questions.”

Enabling legislation is currently scheduled to receive Royal Assent by the end of 2016.

In its interim report,  the High Speed Rail Bill Select Committee called for a number of changes such as replacing a planned viaduct in Staffordshire with a tunnel and  the need to improve the function of the newly introduced “Need to Sell” compensation scheme. It also called on HS2 Ltd to provide a guide to tunnelling costs to help petitioners in assessing proposals.