Should the U.K. Government Continue to Build High Speed 2?
What is High Speed 2?
High Speed Rail 2, commonly known as High Speed 2, or simply just HS2, is a brand new high speed rail link that is set to connect Britain’s most important cities, both faster and more efficiently than ever before. It is described by HS2 Ltd, the company responsible for its design and construction, as being ‘Britain’s new high speed rail line being built from London to the North West.’ With its sheer size and unprecedented nature of the project, it has become Europe’s largest infrastructure project[1]. The current construction of the rail link is the 170 mile section between Crewe and London, this is estimated to create 25,000 jobs[2]. One of the link’s key aims is to integrate lines all around Britain. The line itself will roughly follow the course of the already existing West Coast Mainline, which runs between London Euston, Birmingham New Street, Manchester Piccadilly and Glasgow Central. It will also allow for links to other lines around the country such as the East Coast Mainline towards Yorkshire, The North East and Scotland. Eventually, the Government intends to build over 260 miles of High Speed lines, however this will not be instant.
The route will be built in three stages, the first of which being under construction now. Phase 1 will run between London Euston, the current terminus of the West Coast Mainline, and the newly rebuilt Birmingham Curzon Street. The Birmingham terminus, which closed initially to passengers in 1893[3], will be unique in being a modern station built around the old Curzon Street Station, a Grade I listed structure[4]. Whilst the exact date of the project’s opening is uncertain due to the sheer nature of it, the BBC are reporting that Phase 1 is expected to open between 2029 and 2033. Phase 1 will then be followed by Phase 2a, this will take the route beyond Birmingham into the North, via Crewe in Cheshire. This is reported by the BBC to be opening between 2035 and 2040. The final phase, 2b, will be the fully integrated railway into Manchester, the East Midlands and the North, via the existing rail lines to improve connectivity to cities around the country. This will likely open into the 2040s.
The two key aims of the line are reducing rail traffic on the pre-existing lines and to create modal shift, which is the concept of passengers switching from other modes of transport such as flying and driving onto the new line. The way it aims to achieve clearing the pre-existing lines is to have fast express services on the new high speed line, designed for high capacity, so that the 'classic' mainlines are reserved for slower services, which will speed them up as they will have these old lines to themselves. Therefore, in theory, this should create a much more efficient railway as lines will not be blocked up. It also means that express services will not be held up by slower moving commuter or freight traffic as they are operating separately, where HS2 is in place. Modal shift is set to be achieved as travelling on the new line will make rail a lot more attractive when compared to driving and it will also be comparable to flying, when using journey times as a metric, which could tempt people onto the more eco-friendly railway. Using state of the art trains built by Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe, it will take at least half an hour off the journey between London and Birmingham and at least twenty minutes off the journey between London and Manchester. On top of this, it is the second addition to Britain’s High Speed network. The first, High Speed 1, runs between London and the Channel Tunnel in Kent. However, the opposition to High Speed Two is extremely strong with many groups, such as the Green Party, being in staunch opposition to the project. This essay will analyse the economic arguments both for and against the development, the social and environmental arguments and also compare it to the current network’s advantages and shortcomings and come to the conclusion that the Government should build High Speed 2.
Economic Arguments For
Ultimately, much of the support for High Speed 2 comes from its economic merits. The first economic benefit it presents, which massively benefits the consumer, is that prices on existing routes will be lowered as the express services, which usually generate the highest fares, will be put onto the new High Speed line, therefore rail travel on the existing lines will come down in price as they are no longer the most premium. Therefore, this assists in creating greater choice for the passenger as they have a choice between the premium, fast offering on High Speed 2, or the slower and cheaper offer on the older lines. This will help achieve one of the key aims of privatisation of the railways, that being to create a free market in rail. As a secondary effect of building the High Speed line, this will help achieve modal shift as those who would not normally travel by rail due to the cost will have an option that is cheaper to them. This is a huge benefit as it creates more accessible rail links and will also contribute to sustainability as more people will travel by train as opposed to by car, therefore creating a huge economic argument for building the line.
Another huge economic upside to building the line is that it will provide thousands of jobs. Some of these jobs will be directly involved with High Speed 2, such as the 25,000 involved in the construction of the line and the crew that will be personally involved in the running of the trains. On top of this, many of the jobs, such as engineering and driving, will be high paying, therefore greatly contributing to the economy themselves through higher tax brackets. These high paying jobs also contribute greatly to government economic policy such as ‘Levelling Up’ and the modernisation of the railways as they provide high paying jobs on a brand new railway.
Another benefit economically is that the cost will be spread over 15-20 years. Whilst the cost of building High Speed 2 is high at up to nearly £100 billion, over 20 years that works out to £5 billion per year, thus only working out to around 0.22% of the British GDP annually, based off the current U.K. GDP of £2.3 trillion. This therefore furthers the argument of building the railway as it displays how the cost of its construction is manageable on the Exchequer. As well as this benefit in its cost, economic forecasts predict that the railway will create £2-3bn in annual investments[1], resulting in strong returns on investment. This will create economic stimulation and therefore achieves another key aim of the railway as it improves the business of the U.K. Finally, former Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid’s budget in 2020 revealed the economic damage that would be created as a result of the cancellation of High Speed 2. He stated that £9 billion had already been invested and at that stage the damage of cancellation could cost as much as £12bn. With there being a further two years of investment into the project and more work done on it, if it were to be cancelled now it would cost even more. This would be detrimental as that money would instantly be lost and there would be no way to recover it through returns, which will be seen when the railway is completed.
Therefore, this all suggests that it is absolutely essential that the link is to be completed so that money isn’t lost and that investment is brought in. On top of this, the higher speed journeys between major cities will bring businesses closer together than ever before, therefore to improve the British economy, especially in the long-term recovery from the fallout created from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential that the economic benefits of HS2 can be reaped and it is clear that it must be built from an economic standpoint.
Social and Environmental Arguments For
Many of Britain’s major railways have been around since the dawn of railways in the Victorian era, including the two major Anglo-Scottish routes, the East and West Coast Mainlines, which connect many of the major cities that High Speed 2 will serve upon its opening. Whilst these lines have served Britain for over 150 years in many cases, they carry the issues that can only be expected from railways of their age. The aging nature of these railways have resulted in many issues that harm passengers and the connections between cities that benefit business and the economy. Of the 7.6m passenger train services in 2019, 257,000 were cancelled, working out to 3.4% of all services, and 927,000 were delayed by at least 5 minutes, working out to 12.2% of all services. Whilst not all of these issues were directly caused by aging British railway infrastructure, it is certainly a factor that can cause problems. One of the most notorious issues is when leaves fall on the line, which creates low rail adhesion. This may be avoided with the construction of High Speed 2 as the mitigation of issues is a key priority.
Modal shift is an absolute necessity as the climate crisis becomes ever more apparent and the dangers of using less environmentally friendly modes of transport such as cars and planes become clear. On average, Britons make 380 car journeys per year[2], whereas the average Briton makes 27 train journeys per year[3], HS2 will allow the imbalance in these modes of transport to dissipate. This may occur through the quality of the railway provided on the new High Speed link. This will benefit the environment as passengers will be travelling on very low carbon electric trains, something absolutely essential to address climate issues.
Another issue affecting the railways of Britain is the cost when compared to the speed. A return journey between London and Birmingham booked a week in advance can fetch prices of around £66[4], with an average journey time of around 2 hours on the West Coast Mainline[5]. Many travellers will be put off by high prices that yield a slow journey time. Therefore, this encourages apathy and a preference for people to use their cars. By providing a much quicker journey, travellers may concede that the price of a journey on High Speed 2 is worth it and begin to use the train for their journeys, therefore benefitting the environment as the railway will be able to take cars off the road. As well as this, a major downside of the current mainlines is just how common diesel trains are. On the West Coast Mainline, operator Avanti West Coast still use diesel powered trains on services between London and Birmingham, with this journey being covered by overhead electrics for the full length, it is not as environmentally friendly as using full electric trains. High Speed 2 will use fully electric trains on all of its journeys and the need for diesel services on the West Coast Mainline will cease to exist as the demand will be low enough for the electric fleet to be exclusively used by the West Coast operator. This means that the rail network can be as green as possible.
It is clear that High Speed 2 will be the green option for travelling, when compared to other modes of transport. With modal shift occurring, domestic flight traffic will massively decrease, which will be very beneficial to the environment. In summary, High Speed 2 will be of significant environmental benefit and will create a much more convenient network that passengers will actually want to travel on, creating huge social benefits for people.
How is the Current Network Inadequate?
On top of the benefits already touched upon, the construction of High Speed 2 will result in some very substantial advantages over and above the pre-existing British network. The first of which being the rolling stock that will be used. As already discussed, this will be built by Japanese firm Hitachi at their plant in Newton Aycliffe. As well as providing engineering jobs to the County Durham facility, these trains are set to be some of the most advanced to have ever entered service in Britain. The Japanese company are well known for the quality of their trains and the cutting edge technology that their trains feature. Not only this but their experience of building the Javelin trains for High Speed 1 and their Intercity Express Programme stands them in good stead in terms of experience to build these new high-tech trains for use on High Speed 2. This will provide a huge benefit for passengers as the trains they will be travelling on will be the absolute best trains possible, therefore passenger satisfaction should be high. They will also be designed to be as efficient as possible, therefore contributing to the argument that it must be built from an environmental perspective.
Another huge advancement over the current network is its course. The West Coast Mainline follows a very hilly and curved course between London and Glasgow via the major cities that High Speed 2 will connect, thus limiting any trains that don’t tilt round corners to 110 miles per hour; the course that High Speed 2 has been designated to run along is as straight and flat as possible. This will allow trains to go as fast as possible not limited by the terrain. Therefore, this completely improves over the current network through greater speed and the lack of need for tilting trains to achieve maximum line speed, thus furthering the quality of service that passengers will receive on the line.
Safety is also something that will be improved upon. With the line being built from scratch, exacting modern safety standards are at the heart of the development. Older lines have many weak points for safety, this is highlighted through the Selby Rail Disaster of 2001, in which a car drove off a bridge into the path of an oncoming train[6]. This would not happen on High Speed 2 as, if High Speed 1 is to be used as a reference, many sections of track will have high walls next to them[7], therefore stopping anything getting onto the tracks, thus improving safety and efficiency of service.
One of the most telling improvements over the current network are the new stations that are opening for the rail link. One example is London Euston, which is colloquially known for its bad design, being redeveloped for High Speed 2, thus improving one of London’s major stations. On top of this Birmingham completely Curzon Street will level the strain of the congested Birmingham New Street, which is Britain’s 8th busiest station[8]. This will therefore improve the Midlands and cement Birmingham as being a worthy second city, which will truly benefit Birmingham as an area that has suffered major deprivation in several areas in recent years.
The final key benefit over the current network is its new signalling system[9]. The conventional system used throughout Britain relies on physical signals by the side of the track that work in sections that allow one train in at a time. The system used on High Speed 2 will be an in-cab system that allows trains to run at closer range, and therefore by extension faster and closer together. This reduces journey times and increases capacity together, therefore making rail more attractive and more accessible, as well as improving safety.
These improvements are absolutely vital to make. They all build on the weaknesses that the current system suffers from and absolutely adds to the essential need to build High Speed 2 to improve Britain’s railways.
Economic Disadvantages
Whilst High Speed 2 does present a vast array of benefits to both the British economy and British public, it has many flaws. As much as it could create a great deal of economic prosperity, there are still many major economic problems that it possesses. The first of these is arguably the most poignant, the cost. As of November 2021, the budget was forecast to be potentially as high as £98 billion[10]. This is a strong argument against the railway, mainly because of the economic climate much of the construction falls inside of. When economies across the world practically fell apart due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.K. was no exception, its economy slumped 9.9% during 2020, making a nearly £100 billion investment seem excessive when the country should be focusing on returning to normal and to a working economy. 2022’s Cost of Living Crisis also shuns the idea of High Speed 2 being worthy of construction as energy bills rise to record levels and many may argue that a nearly £100 billion investment would be far better in the pockets of ordinary British people in order to subsidise their energy bills. The fact that the loss would only amount to around £12 billion for cancelling the railway also enhances this argument as it still frees up £86 billion of government money that could be used to subsidise against the Cost of Living crisis. However, whilst this argument holds strong, the construction of High Speed 2 represents a monumental departure from the economic policy of austerity that defined the 2010s. Instead, this represents an economic policy of investment, which can create return- a concept very seldom seen in the age of austerity, therefore creating opportunity and could indirectly help to remedy the economic issues that are currently plaguing Britain.
Another set of major issues that High Speed 2 presides over are some of the monumental errors of mis-planning that have already taken place. Speaking to BBC Panorama, former executive of the project Dough Thornton explained that the initial purchase prices that they had calculated for land were ‘enormously wrong.’[11] In 2019 a Freedom of Information request revealed that these figures were initially set at £1.1bn, but have amounted to £5 billion. With this being a nearly fivefold increase, it clearly presents the argument that if the planners couldn’t get this pricing right that there is a clear valence issue in the construction of the railway in its entirety. On top of this, it also suggests that the full railway budget is very likely to increase, especially considering it initially started at £55.7 billion. However, whilst this is another clear issue with the project it is somewhat inevitable. On this scale, land is almost certain to fluctuate in value especially considering likely year-on-year change in the markets. A further argument to support this is that planning projects very frequently result in underestimations in their budgets. An example of this is London’s brand new Elizabeth Line. This rail line through central London was initially due to open in December 2018 but instead opened three and a half years late on the 24th May 2022[12] and was around £4 billion over its initial budget[13]. In its first three months of operation it has ran well, despite it stepping overbudget. Therefore, if this logic applies to High Speed 2 it is very much possible for the railway to be a success, despite its cost. Therefore, this massively furthers the argument to build the railway on the grounds that the initial spend may end up being worth it.
The next way in which High Speed 2 presents an economic challenge is the operational costs that will be generated. Currently, the average salary for an experienced train driver in the U.K. is £65,000 per year[14]. With the highest speed lines only being 125 miles per hour, the skill that will be required of a driver will be less than that required of a high speed driver. Therefore, this means that the salary demands of drivers on High Speed 2 will be very high, exponentially increasing operational costs. This creates one of two issues, the first being very high ticket prices, an effect that will be felt by the user and could potentially put people off using the project, therefore decreasing the chances of a strong return on investment. The alternative to this is that the tickets could be subsidised by the government, however this would be problematic as the burden of the increased cost would fall onto the taxpayer, thus creating further expense during a time of economic issues. However, many of the passengers onboard High Speed 2 will be those travelling on business. This, therefore means that if the fare structure is set up correctly it will mean that those travelling on business, with greater funds to spend on expenses due to the interests of businesses seeing value in High Speed 2 ticket prices, on peak-time trains will pay more so that it subsidises the difference for those travelling out of their own pocket, allowing for modal shift to take place effectively and fairly.
Overall, whilst High Speed 2 does create economic challenges, many of them are to be expected from a project the size of High Speed 2, as well as this the economic challenges can be counteracted by the benefits that are present, ergo the argument for the government to build the rail link is strengthened.
Social and Environmental Arguments Against
One of the most contentious issues of High Speed 2 is its environmental and social impact . The first of these is the number of houses that will be destroyed as a result of the construction. 900 homes are believed to be demolished as well as 1000 businesses[15]. This creates huge social issues as people will be forced to leave their homes and the communities that they have immersed themselves in. This is taking place in a housing market that is becoming progressively harder to buy into by the year, therefore those put out of houses may struggle to find a suitable new home, due to the speed in which houses are sold. Business owners will potentially struggle more as a result of this as many are built into the market that they were originally in. This will cause some of these businesses to be unable to restart, therefore forcing them into non-existence. However, part of the vast cost for the railway is purchasing these assets at prices far above market value. Therefore, this compensates both business and home owners for the inconvenience as well as the value of their asset. This means that homeowners will be able to climb the property ladder and buy nicer homes and it allows for business owners to invest in relocation and upgrading their business, thus further contributing to economic growth, as well as the Levelling Up agenda previously mentioned.
The first major environmental effect of building High Speed 2 is the woodland and natural space that will be destroyed. It is expected that 60 irreplaceable ancient woodlands will be destroyed[16],5 internationally protected wildlife sites, 693 local wildlife sites and 33 legally protected sites[17]. This is massively harmful given the importance of woodland in the face of how serious we know climate change to be. On top of this, it will be incredibly harmful to biodiversity, something which is equally as environmentally irresponsible to tamper with. There are also major implications in terms of the CO2 created from the construction of High Speed 2. HS2 Ltd themselves predict that the carbon emissions from the construction of the railway will be around 1.451 million tonnes[18]. This is made even more concerning by the fact that the 120 year estimates of carbon savings are only 307,000 tonnes[19], this means that the railway will never be carbon neutral. Many may argue that this defeats the entire focus of the railway as it means that it harms the environment more than it protects it. This is in complete contrast to the cornerstone idea that travelling by train is the most environmentally friendly option, therefore this serves as a huge detriment against the construction of the railway and is a very strong argument as it indicates from an environmental perspective that the railway should not be built. However, this is only a 120 year prediction. Firstly, it is likely that High Speed 2 could be used beyond 120 years’ time as it will be a purpose built railway for speed and efficiency, as opposed to the pre-existing railways that are around that age. On top of this, an unprecedented rise in air travel could be possible due to the current network. With London to Edinburgh being faster by plane[20] and with the current infrastructure aging constantly with very little improvement, existing rail travellers may turn away from trains and start using planes to complete their journeys instead, therefore by not building High Speed 2, high carbon domestic transport may grow beyond where it already is, furthering the high speed rail link’s necessity.
How is the Current Network Adequate?
Despite its natural flaws from age, Britain’s rail network is still very advanced and much better than that of nations such as the U.S.A., especially considering Britain’s place as a small country.
One reason for the current network being adequate is that investment is still constant. An example of this is the project to bring the latest digital signalling to the East Coast Mainline between London Kings Cross and Edinburgh Waverly[21]. This will therefore present one of the benefits of High Speed 2 to the current network, that being the ability to have improved signalling with more trains being able to run closer together at a greater speed, without the costs of High Speed 2. Whilst this will improve and speed up the current network, it will not be able to achieve anywhere near what High Speed 2 will able to due to the geography of the route and the rest of the infrastructure that is present along the route, therefore it will not be the stark improvement Britain needs for its railways.
One point thrown around in discourse around High Speed 2 is that it is a vanity project to show off the brilliance of Britain’s railways and engineering. Therefore, with High Speed 1 already existing and linking with the Channel Tunnel for links to mainland Europe, the need for another high speed line that is solely domestic and doesn’t link with High Speed 1, it does not serve as a necessary vanity project to improve Britain’s place in the wider world. However, whist there is some argument to suggest that High Speed 2 is a vanity project, it will serve beneficial to those who will use it, therefore the argument that it is improving transport links and speeding up journeys is far stronger.
Thirdly, a huge issue travel along the West Coast Mainline suffers from is that the terrain heavily limits the speed at which trains can travel. With it winding its way over mountains and through valleys between Britain’s major western cities, it carries a maximum speed of 110 miles per hour for any train that doesn’t tilt. The operator of the line, Avanti West Coast, does operate a fleet of tilting trains, which allows speeds of 125 miles per hour to be achieved. This is a huge issue as journeys could be sped up greatly if the course of the route was flatter and straighter, as HS2 seeks to achieve. With Avanti West Coast’s tilting train, the Pendolino, already 21 years old[22] the need for a replacement is becoming clear. The fact that it will need to be tilting to connect London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow adds additional cost that will be transferred to the passengers and taxpayer. Estimates from 2010 on Rail Forums put the Pendolino order at £1.2bn of worth[23], therefore a replacement fleet could likely break the £2bn mark. With the expense of keeping the West Coast Mainline functional, it is clear that High Speed 2 is necessary, especially considering the straight nature of the route will likely negate the need for tilting trains, thus saving on this piece of technology.
Crucially, as an argument against High Speed 2, satisfaction with British intercity travel is generally quite high. In 2019, polling data from Statista revealed that there was an overall 83% satisfaction for the whole network. This is quite high and reveals that the issues that High Speed 2 cites as necessity are not the issues they proport to be. In addition, mainline travel has very high satisfaction with LNER securing 90% satisfaction amongst its passengers[24]. This could reveal that the issue with Britain’s railways lies with the local services. For example, Middlesbrough and Newcastle both stand as major population centres in the North East. The two are directly connected by rail and the operator, Northern, operate an hourly service, generally using a two carriage train. This could, therefore, depict that the major issue at hand is local travel, especially in the North and that High Speed 2 is not directly addressing this. However, whilst local travel generally suffers, part of this could be blamed on how busy mainlines are and that there is not the space in the timetables to allocate further local services, therefore if High Speed 2 takes trains of pre-existing routes it will free them up for local services and regional transport will improve as a result.
It is clear that the current network is starting to suffer. With much of it being Victorian, High Speed 2 is a complete overhaul of the British railway system, therefore if it is not built, rail travel in the UK will suffer and will harm those who depend on the railways.
Conclusion
To conclude, the need for a high speed rail link in Britain is absolutely vital. Whilst High Speed 2 is not absolutely perfect, it presents economic and social benefits that are relevant to the current period of time. With an aging intercity railway system that is beginning to throw up problems and a decrepit system of local railways, the completion of High Speed 2 would take the pressure off these aging systems and begin to modernise the network to bring it in line with those overseas such as France, Spain or Italy. As society becomes more advanced and technology progresses, the way we travel must change with the times. At present Britain’s railways are not cut out for the present, let alone the future. As the climate crisis worsens by year and cars and planes show no sign of getting greener, it is clear that the solution is public transport, that could stretch from merely bicycle hire for short journeys, buses and metro-style railways for urban journeys and all the way up to high speed rail at the very top of the chain. It is only natural that Britain needs a true long distance, high speed railway at the summit of its public transport. Therefore, the U.K. government must seize the opportunity and continue to build High Speed 2.
[4] £66 return- found on Thetrainline.com on 2/8/22 for a journey between Birmingham New Street and London Euston on 9/8/22
[5] https://www.thetrainline.com/train-times/london-to-birmingham#:~:text=The%20average%20journey%20time%20by,around%20292%20trains%20per%20day.
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_railway_stations_in_Great_Britain (ORR Passenger stats)
[10] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16473296
[11] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16473296
[12] https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/planning-construction-news/elizabeth-line-crossrail-london-opens/111189/
[13] https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/planning-construction-news/elizabeth-line-crossrail-london-opens/111189/
[14] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16473296
[15] Independent Article- See Bibliography- Labelled as ‘FOOTNOTE 19’
[16] www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/hs2-railway-route-houses-demolish-woodland-destroy-environment-impact-london-birmingham-manchester
[17] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/15/hs2-will-destroy-or-damage-hundreds-of-uk-wildlife-sites-report
[18] https://stophs2.org/facts
[19] https://stophs2.org/facts
Comments
Post a Comment