Arguments against HS2?

The business case

The business case has been scrutinised by various groups including HS2 Action Alliance and the Tax Payers Alliance, who conclude that the advantages have been exaggerated and are widely optimistic. For instance, rather than benefit the entire country, it will in fact only benefit those living in close proximity to the five stations and even then many will not be able to afford to use it.

• It also assumes a 200% increase in passenger demand over 23 years, a phenomena not yet witnessed in the history of modern travel.
• In all probability, like HS1, it will run at a loss for the outset and will have to be subsidised by the tax payer.
• HS2 Ltd acknowledge that only wealthy travellers will be able to afford this train- it is not a train for the majority of British people.
• A large proportion of its £32 billion economic benefit comes from increased productivity because people spend less time travelling.
• HS2 is argued to be the solution to the North-South divide, but this is a claim that has no factual basis, with 7 out of 10 jobs created in London, and the likely movement of money and people towards London rather than back to the North according to transport expert Prof. Mike Geddes.

This, however, totally ignores that time on a train is not wasted and unproductive as we live in an age of wireless communication and computers.

The Government decides on the feasibility of a project on the basis of a cost benefit ratio of 1:5. According to many commentators the Government cannot prove its business case.

Travel Times

The Government claims that journeys to Birmingham will be 20-30 minutes less than on current routes. It does not, however, mention that anyone wanting to actually go into Birmingham will have to transfer back onto the existing rail or transport infrastructure resulting in the no travelling time saving, i.e. to Birmingham New Street. Travel times have been challenged and once transfer times have been included the time savings look less impressive. By the time the train is built, Virgin Trains on existing lines will be competitive, offering a journey just 11 minutes slower  than HS2.

The belief that high speed rail is green is a myth

Over the next 60 years UK rail transport is predicted to have a reduced or stable carbon footprint. One of HS2’s green credentials is based on an assumption that high speed rail will lead to a reduction in domestic air travel. This overlooks the fact that domestic travel is already dominated by rail and the reductions will be small. HS2 limited have admitted that any cut in C02 emissions ‘are small when set in the context of overall transport emissions’. A recent report predicts that HS2 would in fact increase carbon emissions, whilst the government’s own Sustainable Development Commission released their own damning report, concluding HS2 was an unsustainable vanity project.

The local environmental impact would be considerable, and no compensation can counteract the destruction of rare species and unique natural habitats, ancient forests and woodland, lakes, nature reserves and farmland.  The environmental benefit of HS2 has already been invalidated as an argument by the RSPB, The Woodlands Trust, Friends of the Earth, Wildlife Trusts. The Green Party recently voted against HS2 and in a statement said:‘”The proposed HS2 trains would burn 50% more energy mile-for-mile than the Eurostar.” “HS2 would produce more than twice the emissions of an intercity train.” And that it would be “economically and environmentally unsound”.

There is so much concern from non-partisan groups about the environmental and civic impact of HS2, that a new High Speed Rail Charter was launched, lead by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, who were joined by Campaign for Better Transport, Greenpeace and many others in raising concerns over a) the lack of integration of HS2 into existing infrastructure, b) Environmental impact, c)Looking at the alternatives d) conducting a fair and proper consultation.

The government have failed to account for the huge and catastrophic permanent environmental impact to the backbone of the UK that would be caused by the construction of the line and the subsequent noise pollution to areas surrounding it. The DfT and HS2 Ltd have failed to conduct a proper Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed route, which does not sufficiently  factor the destruction of the environment into their proposals and consultation.

Existing train services will be adversely affected

Trains not on the high speed rail will be slowed or axed particularly around Birmingham, Euston, and on the Great Western Main Line, in order to make HS2 competitive. This has been evidenced by HS1 where commuters in Kent have found, that unless they live directly near the stations, they have not experienced any benefit and even worse have lost a large part of their local rail service. This is despite the fact that demand for HS1 has been poor resulting in shorter and less frequent trains. As one commentator remarked ‘Has anyone seen Kent’s economy improve considerably since HS1 arrived?’

Many services away from the line itself will be affected, for example direct services between Coventry and London will be cut from 3 to 1 train per hour. For more examples please see this article by Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph.

There are cheaper and more effective alternatives that benefit the whole country

The initial estimated cost to the taxpayer is £34 billion for construction. Once running, the rail link will cost the British public billions of pounds subsidising its running costs, and it will only serve a few major connurbations, currently only London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. At a time when every household in the country faces cutbacks in salary and services this is an unnecessary, vanity project.

The government’s Department for Transport (DfT) have buried cheaper and better alternatives, including Rail Package 2 (RP2), promoted by Atkins, which would solve all the capacity problems through upgrades to existing rail networks, which can be done in line with passenger demand incrementally, in a cheaper more sustainable way, for just £2 billion net cost to the taxpayer. Not only is RP2’s capacity misrepresented (at 54%) when in fact it delivers more than is needed (151%), but to counter the argument for RP2, the DfT are now trying to claim that it will be more expensive than the amount that was originally quoted by Atkins. Yet even at the increased estimated cost of £8 billion, it is still less than half the cost of HS2.

RP2 can be delivered incrementally in line with demand (therefore less risk) and deals with overcrowding much more quickly than HS2. Over 100% increase in standard class seating can be delivered and commuter problems at Milton Keynes dealt with by train lengthening, substituting a standard for a first class carriage and one infrastructure development at Ledbury junction costing £263m, all achievable withing 5 years.

The DfT claim RP2 will be very disruptive, but in fact disruption would be unlike the previous WCML upgrade because the infrastructure developments are limited to specific pinch points. By contrast, HS2 requires a complete rebuilding of Euston station over 8 years.

The DfT say the assumption that time is unproductive on trains is OK because of crowding, even though trains would be LESS crowded with RP2 (51% load factor not 58%). This undermines a key argument in favour of HS2.

More information

For further information about the environmental, business and economic problems posed by HS2 please see www.stophs2.org and www.hs2actionalliance.org.