Need for (high) speed: Scrapping HS2 will deepen existing divides

Five hours, £45. That is the rough time and cost of my single train journey home booked three weeks in advance. Booking a coach would be significantly cheaper; however, with a travel time of nine hours I would rather that my commute not feel like Cooper in the final scene of Interstellar finding out that his daughter is twice his age. These times and prices also assume that everything runs according to plan. Buying a train ticket often feels like buying a losing lottery ticket, with frequent cancellations, last minute service changes, and overcrowded trains.

Rail transport has long been treated by successive governments as a political football: one that’s been kicked onto the railway tracks and forgotten about. Beyond bad metaphors, this actually shows in the data. Despite having the world’s sixth-largest economy, a smaller proportion of our railways are electric than Bulgaria’s. Astoundingly, research from the Financial Times shows that we have a lower percentage of large cities with light rail infrastructure than the car-obsessed USA. The ever-present illness behind this symptom of stagnation is short-termism: both political parties view large, long-term spending commitments as electorally unrewarding.

In addition to light rail infrastructure, we are also glaringly behind with high speed connections. The Eurostar to the Channel Tunnel is our only purpose-built high-speed line, with four other supposedly high-speed lines stuck at 125mph on Victorian infrastructure. Compare that with Italy, a country of comparable size and population. Italy has built over 1400 km of high-speed rail tracks linking up its major cities, with trains running at speeds of 190mph. Britain built the history of rail transport – we should not be left behind in it.

Which brings us to HS2. Last week Rishi Sunak announced that the northern leg of HS2 will be scrapped, with the new route running from London Euston to Birmingham and 35 billion of saved expenditure being diverted towards a new “Network North.”

However, upon closer inspection this new “Network North” looks to be as carefully planned out as an essay written the night before it’s due. For example, this “Network North” features projects that have already been committed and includes projects in well-known northern powerhouses such as Southampton. These obvious mistakes combined with the lack of consultation with local leaders is the ‘Westminster Bubble’ in full effect.

In my view, the decision to scrap HS2 is a fundamental mistake. An integrated high-speed rail system is crucial for resolving the imbalance between London and the rest of the country. Scrapping the line will create further inequalities.

It comes as no surprise that, even though it is 2023, the UK still has stark regional inequalities. Institute for Public Policy Research’s latest ‘State of the North’ report reaffirms that the UK continues to be the most “regionally unbalanced large economy.” Examples where this can be shown includes lower public spending, lower investment and lower productivity. The Conservative government has fundamentally failed to level up the north.

When it comes to rail transport, the reality is equally stark and this is reflected in the government’s own data. In 2016/17 the government spent an average of £773 per person in London on rail transport, whereas our region, the north west, only received £175!

Building HS2 is critical for levelling up northern infrastructure. Our Mayor Andy Burnham has warned that without it inequalities will be exacerbated because the north is “trapped” by “old infrastructure” which he claims is the “recipe for the north-south divide to become a north-south chasm”.

One common criticism made is that HS2 would not bridge this chasm because high speed trains are unnecessary for our small country. However, HS2 is not just about speed, it is about capacity. Building the full HS2 route would take significant pressure off the West Coast Main Line, England’s busiest rail corridor, which was declared by Network Rail in 2020 as officially “congested.” Building HS2 would allow more freight and local services on this line, improving regional and local connectivity.

With HS2 and other long term investments, the amount of economic gain in regions outside of London is vast. Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s former Chief Economist, made the case on Channel 4 that “by unlocking the potential in UK cities [outside of London], each year you could earn yourself an extra £100 billion, compared to the 100 billion one-off cost of HS2.” Our economy has been dominated by ‘the City’ for far too long. It is time other regions regained their national importance.

Which brings us to finances. An established criticism of HS2 has been its ballooning cost. Since it was introduced in 2010 its cost has climbed from £37.5 billion to over £100 billion. However, as the journalist and broadcaster Aaron Bastani points out, “that’s an argument to address costs, not to ditch the whole thing.”

Indeed, high costs seem to be a problem endemic to most UK rail projects. For instance, other major projects such as the Elizabeth Line and the Edinburgh Tram system were delivered late and significantly over budget.

According to Sam Dumitrui, head of policy at the thinktank Britain Remade, the government overspends on projects because “we give too much power to people objecting to projects and end up in a situation where schemes are gold-plated. Another [reason] is that we don’t use off-the-shelf designs as much as we should do.”

Another central criticism of the HS2 project is its environmental impact. In their latest report ,Wildlife Trusts argue that “the proposed HS2 scheme will be devastating to the natural environment”. Much of this stems from HS2 being in proximity to many protected woodland sites. However, again I believe this is simply a question of implementing better policy rather than scrapping the project. Indeed, the report even admits that most woodland removal “could be avoided with design amendments and route refinements.”

Therefore, if we are to address costs and the impact on nature, tackling Britain’s planning system and implementing a more stringent environmental policy framework for HS2 should be the way forward. We should not let fixable problems sway us from building for the future. The north built Britain’s past, therefore it presently deserves part in the projects of the future.

Overall, transport investment, the political debates that drive it, and the legislative power that enacts it are all centred around our capital. Making long term investments (which HS2 would be!) in regions outside of London help bring about a more equal and connected Britain. Whilst at the moment it may seem impossible to imagine Britain criss-crossed with modern and affordable public transport, “we’ve always defined ourselves by the ability to overcome the impossible” – Cooper, Interstellar.