#HS2 : A Conflict Of Interest ?

I've found myself in a strange position over the HS2 issue. I think its a great opportunity for my industry (the much beleaguered construction industry), however, putting my taxpayers head on, I feel its a complete waste of money with no proven business case to back it up. So do I get behind it and give it my whole support or do I oppose it. 

There are pro's and con's with each argument but they're not necessarily balanced.

And It's Good Because ?

From my point of view if it were to be built it would create many, many jobs in the civil engineering and construction industries. It will make very successful careers for consultants, designers, architects, and other engineers.

  

HS2 is about capacity as much as about speed. In theory if we can reduce internal flights and replace them with faster, higher capacity rail, routes while also providing more capacity on local & commuter rail routes then this would be a win/win for UK transport. Though this would only be really successful if the rail fares were also reduced. Despite the complaints people have about the current network, in general, more and more people are using it every year. Combined with a growing population, sooner or later the current routes will need a step increase in capacity, can this not be done by upgrading what we already have though ? Probably !

The construction industry is constantly being forced to innovate and do things quicker. So if we were to build HS2, why does it have to take so long. There's too much faffing about in this country with new construction schemes, hurry up and build them, if we didn't consult for 20 years on them, we could have made the money spent on them back by now. China or Japan would build HS2 in 2 years. If we're doing it just get on with it or we will lose out to other nations who do get on with things.

I reserve judgement on the scale of economic development being trumpeted by supporters as nobody can be certain about this. Overall though HS2 will deliver a fast, very efficient service to the public bringing improvements to current journey times.

But The Downside Is ...

The economic argument cannot be proven, the recent National Audit Office report amply demonstrated this. There is no business case for HS2.

This proposal will obviously not help the long term UK economy, especially the North. There is an argument that it will bring prosperity to the North, however all you have to look at is the high speed link built recently in Spain to Madrid. Did it benefit their north? No, all it did was bring commuters into Madrid. The same thing will happen here, it won't regenerate the North, it will merely continue sucking talent to London.

In an age when travel for business isn't as necessary, why is HS2 being heavily aimed at the business community? Businesses are now investing in video and telephone conferencing technology to ensure their staff don't spend hours sat, unproductively on trains. The firm I work for have done just that and we now have a mandate not to travel, we now even need director approval to spend money on travelling. Three years ago this wasn't the case, I attended meetings in London on a weekly basis, all that's now been banned as technology has taken over.

HS2 is paid for by public money, where is this coming from as last time I looked, we were broke? If HS2 has such a compelling business case, why aren't the private sector queuing up to build it and take the risk? If we have £40bn+ of public money to spare shouldn't we use it to reduce the national debt? The M6 Toll Road reduces travelling time however the operator has never made a profit because not enough are using it, only a few want to pay an inflated price for such a small journey. HS2 is going to be the same failure but on a larger scale and with public money.

Don't forget either that we privatised our railways twenty years ago. Why therefore, should the taxpayer pay for railways to be built so that private companies can run them at a profit? I thought capitalism was about private investors taking a risk with their money in the hope of making a profit. With railways it seems they take no risk and have guaranteed profits.

Finally there is the disruption HS2 will cause to tens of thousands of lives both during its construction and afterwards. People who will gain no benefits whatsoever from HS2 will be forced out of their homes and made to live somewhere else. The first bout of compensation claims are already proving problematic to the government as they're not offering reasonable rates to move. There's a bigger local picture however, its not about money, its about destroying communities, its about dividing villages, its about peoples livelihoods being decimated as the line drives through businesses built up over many years. Supporters of HS2 continually call those who adopt this local opposition as NIMBY in much the same way as New Labour used to refer to anyone who questioned their immigration policy as RACIST. These supporters are also the ones who aren't having a railway line driven through their kitchen.

So Where Do I Stand ?

Personally, I think HS2 is a waste of money, a fabulous showpiece yes, a brilliant project for engineers yes, but ultimately the tax payer will lose out, local communities and businesses on the route will lose out, few will benefit.

The majority of public opinion seems to be weighed towards upgrading existing infrastructure and seeing existing ticket prices reduced. Supporters and the Government are trying to hypnotize the public with the empty promise of faster trains and shorter times etc. However the traveling public don't want mega speeds - they want a train to turn up when planned, provide them with a seat and then get them to their destination on time.

HS2 is clearly a vanity project of the politicians, providing billions to their developer mates. For the National Audit Office to see no benefit is damming, there should be huge overwhelming benefit. Rail needs huge price reductions not greater speed. Capacity may be an issue I accept, however that should be addressed in far simpler wider spread means.

So we should keep our Victorian railways for another 100 years should we? That's effectively what HS2 supporters are saying. Yes, our current railways are aging and overcrowded, we do need to update and upgrade. But HS2 is not the way to do it. Projects like the Manchester Hub are the way forward to increase capacity. We should look at providing new or alternative routes by examining those closed by Dr Beeching in the sixties, re-opening these will be far cheaper than the £40billion (and growing) that HS2 will cost. Alternatively, re-open these routes for freight traffic and get them off the main lines. Going down this route will open the railways up to far more communities and benefit far far more people than a very expensive HS2 ever will.

HS2 is in danger of being the UK's Concorde for the 21st Century. A world leading, high tech,  but very expensive product that only the elite will ever be able to afford to use.