Politicians often seem to make bad decisions. The official announcement last week that the Government had decided to proceed with the highly contentious HS2 rail project seems even worse than most. Having to sit on a busy train doesn’t seem much fun with anybody, so a scheme which would make train journeys up to half an hour shorter seems worthy of praise. That is before we learn that such a scheme will cost the taxpayer £32 billion.
The rail link, to open in 2026 would see high-speed trains travelling between London and Birmingham in 50 minutes. Talk of this scheme connecting the capital with the North is little more than the stuff of dreams, with the extension to Leeds and Manchester not included in this budget or timetable.
High Speed rail seems exciting, but it also seems like a hugely expensive long-term commitment that the Government has embarked upon without properly thinking through. Critics of this Government frequently lambaste it for failing to invest properly in infrastructure projects. Infrastructure investment is undeniably necessary but such spending would be more effective from an economic perspective if this was spread across a variety of different sectors nationwide. Instead the Government is putting all its eggs in one basket.
Although the main opposition arguments are undoubtedly economic, conservationists have put forward a strong case against the project based on the fact that at least a forty-mile section of the route will travel through the Chilterns, an area of outstanding natural beauty. By framing the debate purely in economic terms those ardently supporting HS2 are able to claim that these environmental concerns are simply irrelevant, as they don’t fit into their cost-benefit analysis framework.
Moreover the whole premise upon which the project is based is questionable. Far from encouraging greater economic activity in the North and Midlands it is much more likely to work the other way round, with HS2 acting as a vacuum to these areas, sucking labour and other resources out of these areas and sending them to London. There is no proof that it will lead to a more even economic landscape in this country and in fact it could well do the opposite. High Speed rail in other European states has been shown to directly aid job migration away from the area that it was intended to benefit most.
Even if there is a problem with capacity in our rail network, this seems like a highly elitist response to that. It is inevitable that the ticket prices for high-speed trains will be significantly higher than those for standard trains, partly in order to offset the huge costs involved. High Speed rail will become the choice for business travellers and those able to stump up for the huge fares. Everybody else will end up stuck on the current routes. This in itself is not the end of the world. But when it is being built using £33 billion of taxpayer’s money it seems unjust that the majority of taxpayers will be unlikely to benefit from it directly. And even the indirect benefits to the economy as a whole are questionable.
Investing in infrastructure seems wise, putting all your eggs in one proverbial basket seems foolish, and spending £33 billion to do in a time of intense economic pressures when very few of those funding it will ever reap the questionable benefits seems frankly outrageous.