There's a lot of reporting on the facts that passenger numbers on every HS line has failed to reach predictions, however that doesn't follow that HS2 is the same.
I'll explain, and feel free to highlight any points which I've got wrong.
HS2 was based on 2.4% per year growth and then later on (because growth had out performed this) this was down graded to 1.9% growth.
As such, we don't need to wait 20 years to see if the predictions are on track. Yes we may need to see if the actually reach that level, but we can get a fairly good idea as to if they are likely to our not likely to from where the growth has got to.
Now I know rail passenger numbers can do down as well as up, however between 2009 and 2019 at a growth rate of 2.4% (the original growth rate) for every 100 passengers in 2009 there should have been 127.
By the opening of Phase 1 (2026) it should have been 150 and Phase 2 (2033) 177.
In 2019 the growth rates from 2009 were:
View attachment 83198
Therefore the average for travel between London and those regions which benefit from HS2 is (for robustness I'm rounding down these figures, whilst the above figures were rounded correctly) 153 passengers for every 100 in 2009.
However if you look at those regions which benefit from Phase 2 it's 172 (North West) and 180 (West Midlands), which is around the 177 for the opening of Phase 2.
Now whilst Covid-19 has significant altered 2020's passenger numbers the likelihood is that the long term impact (if our economy is going to get anywhere close back to normal) is likely to be fairly small.
Given that we're already past 2026 figures as a whole, assuming that we average 1.5% from 2021 to 2026 (5 years of growth) then we could still be on track of there was a 9% fall.
However, from what reported it's cited as the predictions are wildly optimistic. Therefore to be wildly optimistic, I assume that it's safe to assume that that's more than 10% adrift (to make a prediction of 150 and it be 135 seams a bit off but not wildly optimistic over a 17 year window), so actually the fall would need to be around the 20% mark or more.
Now in not denying that travel is likely to be significantly changed due to more working from home (having been accelerated by Covid-19), however given that 80% of miles traveled are by car or doesn't take much of a shift (and there's a lot, 29% of households, of 2+ car households), in fact a 6.25% shift from road to rail miles would increase rail use by 50%.
Now whilst that sort of shift is probably unlikely, the fall in rail passenger numbers is likely to be in the 10-15% range (so a shift of 1.25%-1.9% to cover 100% of that fall).
The reason for a 10-15% fall is that 50% of rail travel is business related, 50% of work is viable to be done from home (so a maximum of a 25% fall) with something like 25% likely to opting to or being required to work in the office full time. Then of the remaining workers actually none of them will be remote 100% of the time (12 visits a year is 95%), with many opting for 40%+ within the office. Even if it's only the 25% which are the only ones who are working then it's 19%, to get to 15% the remaining workers need to work from home 80% of the time. Whilst 10% would be circa 50% working from home.
However that assumes an even spread of passenger falls due to WFH, whilst in reality most of that fall would hit London commuting much much harder than long distance passengers. As such even the 10-15% fall is likely to be much lower for long distance travel, however as highlighted above a 9% fall would still leave HS2 passengers broadly on track.
As such it's likely that the cited impact of WFH on HS2 passenger numbers is likely to be over estimated by those who would like HS2 be stopped.
However hopefully I've demonstrated that we don't need to wait 20 years to see that we're not significantly off track from the predictions and that WFH is unlikely to impact rail travel as much as many suggest.
As I've said, feel free to challenge any of the points raised ideally with data.
