I'm one of those who says we are having the wrong type of recovery. When whatever recovery we are having is based on the use of public funding to create a private speculative boom I am not sure how many would disagree.
I am also now going to be one of those who say that the government's proposed infrastructure spending - concentrating as it does on the HS2 rail project - is the wrong type of investment programme.
I am amused to note that John Kay has concluded in the FT this morning that the justification for HS2 "is using bogus modelling and sham consultation". Much the same could be said for almost any cost benefit analysis, but that is not the real reason why this is the wrong project for the UK. There are many better ones than that.
The first is that what the UK needs now to help it get out of recession is an immediate investment programme in shovel ready projects that create a lot of new jobs quickly. Fundamentally this is house building, where 400,000 homes have planning permission, insulation, where the need is colossal, and repairs, where the back log is staggering. HS2 meets none of these criteria. It may have political glamour but it solves no economic problems and it does not provide the benefit that is needed right now.
Second HS2 is wrong because most of the benefit will be to London and any benefit to anywhere else, bar Birmingham, is so long delayed that it can be dismissed. But that's not what the UK needs. London is already the bubble. It's the regions that need aid flowing to them. HS2 flows traffic to London.
Third, HS2 is a premium project aimed at premium customers. candidly it is a 1% exercise because the fares will pretty much guarantee that. This section of society does not need a state subsidy. If they want to travel faster they should pay for it.
And lastly, if better transport infrastructure is needed - and it is - then it is right across the rail system, not just on one high density route. I am a big user of the rail network and I see its variability. I also appreciate just how important it is to so many people right across society. I believe that investment in rail - in a nationalised rail network - is vital but HS2 is not.
Just as we need the NHS so this country needs a National Rail Service. HS2 is not the way to deliver it. Much incremental improvement is.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
You may want to peruse this EU document, if you have enough boredom-resistance:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/connecting/doc/revision/legislative-act-ten-t-revision.pdf
Where you may note that HS2 is one of the “core networks” within Europe.
Although you will note find a single UK elected member stating that.
Our elected representatives are merely doing what they have been told to do.
I thought HS2 was a Labour Project devised to assist travelleling public in the years to come not an infrastructure project to get the wretched Tories growth following their failed austerity experiment for the reasons you state so well.
I have always thought that there is a case for HS2 alongside the shovel projects that you have suggested.
It was conceived in a different era
When facts change it is best to change one’s mind
An addendum, sorry but some links I had saved have changed/disappeared, so I have had to seek them.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/eu-funding-plan-builds-on-ten-t-revisions.html
and:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/1185/1185vw38.htm
You need a careful read of the last link…to note that:
“– That a 50% increase in road fuel duty and a 37% increase in air fares would increase the benefit/cost ratio (even excluding wider economic impacts) to 2.7”
so you may begin to see that the planning has, and is, ongoing to increase the “benefits”…..note that it also envisages a DECREASE in air transport use by increased fares….somewhere….
You WILL use it…..eventually…..even if because no other alternative exists.
Good to see you mention investment in energy efficiency and retrofitting homes – it was found to provide best bang for buck as far as jobs and growth go in this report:
http://www.energybillrevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/PR_Energy_Bill_Revolution_Economic_Impacts_nov2012.pdf
However, I can see we need rail capacity too. How to provide it without simply encouraging people to make longer journeys is not going to be easy.
Apologies to any passing Brummies but what’s in Birmingham that’s so important?
Indeed.
In fact my neighbour put it somewhat more strongly! If HS1 is anything to go by,it will be an expensive flop I think. As I recall,HS 1 was a Government supported project that attracted few passengers,and was eventually sold off?
One element that keeps getting mentioned is the need for increased capacity and the ubiquitous overcrowded trains – what’s wrong with putting a few extra coaches on, saving the money and redirecting it in the manner that Richard suggests.
Wonder how much all the consultants got paid for the ‘sham’ cost benefit analysis!
Actually – that’s quite hard in many cases
a) because platforms aren’t long enough
b) because trains run in fixed formations and ‘a few’ often means at least 4
The economics are not straightforward as a result
In the days of steam and diesel hauled trains this was easy
Modern technology makes it harder….
All good public investment increases local land values (see Jubilee Line Extension: cost £3.5bn, increased land values £13.5bn). I cannot see how HS2 will increase local land values.
To repeat ad infinitum, if land values were collected for public benefit (land value tax) you would have a virtuous circle of increased public investment => increased land values => increased revenue => increased public investment.
Estimates of land value increases should be part of the data used for assessing the viability of all public investment projects.
Is it even mentioned? I’m not familiar with such assessments. I’m guessing not though because the authorities, establishment toadies as they are, don’t even want us to start thinking in such terms.
A ‘virtuous circle’ is the last thing the planners want! Land Value Tax is too rational and reasonable for our politicians who want to benefit from house price rip-offs but don’t want real wealth circulation.
HS2 puts all the eggs in one basket. Surely £50 billion+ could be spent more prudently on infrastructure some on upgrading existing rail eg upgrading track, first rate reliable signalling systems to handle higher traffic, some on upgrading an existing airport an addition and some on housing. Oh sorry, I forgot that’s far too sensible!