Rail privatisation by the Major government heralded the largest growth in passenger numbers in decades. This was down to improvements in service and a timetable to suit passengers, coupled with some attractive fare offers. But future growth of rail travel is unlikely to be at the same high rate and there we have the nub of the arguments around High Speed 2. The Department for Transport has been less successful in forecasting passenger growth than Gordon Brown was at forecasting economic growth — and that is saying something.
Britain needs an integrated transport policy that includes road, rail and air, and it needs to address the so-called north-south divide. But Conservatives believe in choice, so users should be able to choose for themselves the most convenient way to travel.
In a recent letter, the British Chambers of Commerce compare the proposed 70 miles of high-speed railway in the United Kingdom to high-speed rail in countries such as Saudi Arabia (342 miles) and Morocco (422 miles). But those countries do not have such well-developed separate rail or motorway networks. Nor do they have our high population density. As T.E. Lawrence found, there is a lot of empty space in Saudi Arabia.
HS2 does even not substantially cut travelling time between London and Birmingham. Virgin is already reducing journey times on its service and the difference by the time HS2 is built could be as little as 15 minutes.
Many believe that the estimated cost of the line — £32 billion in 2009 prices, so closer to £40 billion now — cannot stand up to scrutiny without also assessing the benefits and costs of an extension to the north, which has not been conducted in any detail. Phase two of the line, to Manchester and Leeds, would not open until 2033.
What is more, the projections by the Department of Transport for the increase in passenger numbers in 2026, the earliest date when the first phase of the new line might come into service, don’t account for the changes in the way business works. Have they not heard of Skype and the internet?
There is a perfectly viable alternative, which is to invest in upgrading the West Coast main line: improved platforms, longer trains, a more frequent service and a link to Heathrow (not included in HS2). It would be much cheaper and faster to take effect, without destroying a whole swath of countryside, ruining the lives of thousands.
HS2 was the brainchild of Lord Adonis, the former Labour transport minister. Normally quite sound, he fell head-first into the Pooh trap as he loved the ‘grand project’. Perhaps he hoped it was going to be called the Adonis Line. It is supported by northern Labour MPs who relish the thought of the beauty of the Chilterns being destroyed, particularly in Conservative-held seats. Bob Crow, the rail union chief, has even complained that there was no corresponding outcry when Canary Wharf and the extension of the Jubilee line was built. I don’t think anyone could compare the wreck of the former London docks to the beauty of the Chiltern hills.
Justine Greening, the Transport Secretary, comes from the Treasury. I hope she has used that experience to scrutinise the economic case. She should compare HS2 with cheaper options and look at how those savings could be spent on other transport needs.
We need better roads, better airport capacity with road and rail connections. We don’t want the closure of more branch lines in order to pay for HS2. Should the money be spent creating a new Heathrow in the Thames Estuary? I hope she has taken the advice of the Commons Transport Select Committee when it called in a recent report for ‘justification for the particular route being proposed’. The Hybrid Bill, when it goes before Parliament, will provide an opportunity for proving the case as well as for any defects to be exposed.
And all interested parties would do well to heed the transport committee when it says: ‘We urge the government to desist from disparaging opponents of HS2 as Nimbys and for both sides of the debate to show respect for each other and focus on the facts.’
I admit I am biased. I am biased in favour of the countryside. I have walked and ridden over the Chilterns all my life. But I am also biased in favour of choice. Choice about how we protect our diminishing countryside. Choice about how we want to travel. But above all, choice about how we invest in our infrastructure to help Britain. And choice is a core value of this Conservative government.