High Speed 2 represents far worse value for taxpayers' money than plans to upgrade existing rail routes, the government’s own analysis has found.
The economic benefits of HS2 will be significantly lower than rival schemes to improve conventional lines between London and the north, it said. Abandoning HS2 in favour of a programme of upgrade work to tracks and stations along existing mainline routes would deliver an extra £1 in economic benefits for every £1 spent, the figures showed.
The findings could critically undermine David Cameron's attempt to re-launch HS2 in the face of growing political opposition. Ministers published their latest economic “business case” for the controversial £50 billion high speed project last week, as the Prime Minister sought to deflect pressure onto Ed Miliband over Labour’s wavering support for the plan.
Key to the government’s argument for proceeding with the scheme is the benefit to the wider economy which will result from a new, high-speed rail link between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Ministers paraded the latest official estimate of the economic value of the plan, which claimed that HS2 would deliver £2.30 in benefits for every £1 spent on the scheme. The figure was based on an assessment of the impact of quicker travel times, more trains running between London and the north, and extra investment in jobs and businesses along the new route, among other factors. However, detailed analysis buried within a separate 150-page study into the alternatives to HS2, also published by the Department for Transport last week, showed that upgrading services on existing rail routes would provide far better value for money.
According to this study, one package of improvement works to existing lines between London, Birmingham and northern cities would deliver economic benefits equal to £3.30 for every £1 invested, 43 per cent more than HS2. A second package of possible upgrade works offered potential benefits of £3.10 for every £1 spent, said the study, which was conducted by Atkins Ltd, the engineering consultancy, with the Department for Transport and Network Rail. These “strategic alternatives” to HS2 would deliver improvements to the East Coast Main Line, the Midland Mainline and the West Coast Main Line.The plans include the laying of extra track, closures of level crossings, the electrification of existing routes, new platforms, and more trains per hour across large sections of the network between London, the Midlands and the North.Parts of the East Coast Main Line would operate at higher speeds of up to 140mph under the alternative proposals.
Department for Transport officials confirmed that the findings represented a fair comparison of the value for money offered by HS2 and the alternatives. However, they insisted that upgrading conventional rail lines would not deliver the same capacity improvements as the entirely new route proposed under HS2. The conclusions prompted fresh demands from opponents of HS2 for ministers to halt the project. Cheryl Gillan, the former Cabinet minister, who is a fierce opponent of HS2, said the figures showed “a phenomenal difference” in value for money between the high speed plan and the alternatives. She said the government had failed properly to consider the alternatives before committing billions of pounds to HS2. “This is another example of where the taxpayers’ money could well be better spent,” she said. “People who are against HS2 are not suggesting that nothing else needs to be done. We know there are alternatives but the Department for Transport does not want to face the fact that there are alternatives.
“I am sure the taxpaying and railway travelling British public would prefer to have taxpayers’ money on something that yields a better result for that money.”
Andrew Bridgen, the Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire, demanded that the Prime Minister scrap HS2 immediately in favour of an alternative package of upgrade work.
“I call on the government to adopt those plans, pull HS2 immediately, give the hard-pressed taxpayer far better value for money and relieve the blight that HS2 is causing across our beautiful country. There never was a business case for HS2 and the alternatives offer far better value.”
The government insisted that the benefits to costs ratio could not show “the full story” of why HS2 was necessary.
HS2 will provide 13,000 seats during peak times, compared to just 3,000 for the alternative schemes, a spokesman for the Department for Transport said.
“The alternatives to HS2 would result in up to 14 years of weekend closures across the network on multiple routes resulting in significant disruption to the travelling public.
“This is not acceptable. They also do not provide anywhere near the increase in capacity or journey time savings of HS2.”
A succession of high-level inquiries has questioned the economic case for the scheme and even Labour party figures who previously favoured HS2 are now saying that it should be abandoned.
Last month, the Commons treasury select committee said the project must be halted until ministers can offer a better economic case for the new line.
Even Lord Adonis, the Labour politician who launched HS2 as Transport Secretary, said that the project was running into trouble.
The peer is one of the strongest supporters of HS2 but he warned that it required "much better project management, in particular to get the costs under control".
Labour MPs were now "rightly asking questions" about the rising bill for the project, he told the Week in Westminster on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday.
