The Government has set out its case for HS2 in a handy leaflet, Investing in Britain's Future - Why we need HS2, published on 29 October. In case you do not have time to read all seven pages, here is a "high-speed" summary:
Investment for growth
Britain needs to invest in transport infrastructure to support a robust, competitive economy - creating homes and long-term jobs, supporting city-centre regeneration and major development schemes. The Government is already investing in transport, for example, extra capacity on motorways, in Crossrail, the Northern Hub, rail electrification and so on.
Demand growing
Long-distance rail demand is growing with the West Coast Main Line at full capacity (despite recent upgrades) and existing trains full at peak times.
Only option
HS2 would provide a step-change in capacity, reducing congestion (road and rail) and "slashing" connection times. Alternative options such as domestic aviation, road capacity, incremental improvements (e.g. longer platforms and trains), more conventional track, and new communications technologies do not provide adequate solutions.
Knock-on effects
HS2 will "restore value" to conventional railways by freeing up space for commuter and regional trains and freight.
To those reading the leaflet who have not been following HS2 closely, the most striking absence may be that of "speed". But those who have been listening to the Government's rhetoric over recent months will know that the capacity "tortoise" has slowly but surely overtaken the high speed "hare". The Strategic Case for HS2 - the larger document which sits behind the leaflet (and which is subject of the next entry of this blog) - talks much more about improvements to connectivity (a broad term which includes, to an extent, shorter journeys, but also includes knock-on capacity benefits), than about the benefits of shorter journey times.
This of course raises the question, why HS2 has been designed for high speed, in terms of alignment, number of stops etc – a point was made in the recent Supreme Court appeal hearings.
Justifying the choice of high speed, The Strategic Case for HS2 states (Executive Summary, para. 49, and para. 3.2.20):
"A new high speed line would cost 9% more than a conventional railway and, in certain respects, would have higher environmental costs, but the difference in price and the relatively higher environmental impact is more than outweighed by the economic benefits to be gained from radically reducing journey times and improving connectivity between our main cities."
"A conventional speed line would cost 9% less than a high speed line, but would deliver far fewer benefits in terms of journey time savings ... Overall, the journey time benefits from high speed outweigh the additional costs when compared to a conventional line by a factor of more than five to one".
However, it is quite difficult to extract from Chapter 5 of The Strategic Case for HS2 what benefits arise from connectivity as a consequence of a high speed line, as opposed to a conventional line. This, and the evidence base behind it, will no doubt be picked over in great detail by those on both sides in the coming months.
The reliance on "capacity" also raises the question of whether there has been appropriate consideration of alternatives to HS2. This will be a particularly important distinction if serious consideration is given to proposals (most recently picked up by Kelvin Hopkins, Labour MP for Luton North and passed to Ed Balls for consideration) to reopen the Great Central Railway, as an alternative to HS2. This existing railway alignment, closed since 1966, used to link London, Rugby, Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds, with a branch to Manchester. Supporters say that, while it would not be high speed, it would deliver similar capacity benefits to HS2, and for a fraction of the cost.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
