Do you believe in Santa Claus? More on the case for HS2

****

In the remake of Miracle on 34th Street (the slightly schmaltzier version of the classic movie) a wave of people across New York - including a couple of baddies - sport "I believe" badges as part of the campaign to liberate Kris Kringle from the asylum.

This statement of faith - an assertion of a truth without evidence or hope of evidence - is the essence of the film. "If the government of the United States can place its trust in God without evidence," proclaims the judge, "then the State of New York can say it believes in Father Christmas."

So it is with HS2. As each economic, social and fiscal argument in its favour falls down we end up with pure faith:

The HS2 rail project would help "rebalance" the UK, former deputy prime minister Lord Heseltine has said.

The senior Tory called the high-speed line a "really imaginative project" to spread the prosperity of London and south-east England around the UK.

We are to ignore the "men with slide rules" (better described as "the evidence") and charge into the future regardless:

"All over the world governments are making decisions about a future which they cannot predict but in which they believe."

Hallelujah! Shake that tambourine! I believe!

....

A frightening comment on the ghastly waste that is HS2 - who runs the country?

****

Here's Jackie Sadek from UK Regeneration:

The government seems to be going out on the offensive to promote HS2 today. About time really. I am a staunch supporter (of course, isn’t everyone in regeneration?) and, having visited the HS2 office within CLG in Eland House a few days ago, I can bear witness to the vast operation already under way.

Gantt charts, like you’ve never seen, plastering the walls.  And row upon row of peeps working hard at computers. An air of quiet industry and permanence abounds. Now I don’t know who really runs this country, but whoever it is, believe me, trust me, they have decided we are HAVING HS2. 

There you have it folks. Forget about votes in parliament. Never mind the role of ministers. We are having HS2! Millions are being spent planning it, developing it and make it happen.

I am inclined on these occasions to scream.

...

Writing elsewhere...on the waste of cash that is HS2

****

Over at the Culture Vultures you can read me ripping into High Speed Two:

Let’s put is more simply still – if the government put £30 billion on the table for The North to develop its transport network, do you think we’d even think of building a railway to London?

Go read - and comment!

....

High Speed 2 would damage the regeneration of Bradford

****

Not me saying this (although I agree with the argument) but a former boss of the Strategic Rail Authority:

“On regeneration, I know of no serious academics who support the view HSR will significantly reduce the North-South divide. Most research indicates the dominant ‘hub’ city benefits more than regional centres and in the regions the impact is likely to be a zero sum game.

“A Leeds HSR station would probably be surrounded by shiny new office blocks, but investment in West Yorkshire would be focused there, and the relative decline of Bradford would accelerate.”

And that's before all the suits whizz off to London on the lovely fast train we've built for their convenience!

....

High speed rail still isn't the solution to the North's economic problems

****

The other evening I was talking with Ray about public transport. A conversation at the end of which we agreed to disagree. However, Ray was absolutely right in his belief that public transport is really about linking close places better - what we might call "intensity" - rather than smoothing the connection between distant places. Far more people want to travel swiftly and easily to a place three miles away that to a place 300 miles away.

Yet the grand and important planning people focus almost entirely in INTER-city travel rather than on INTRA-city travel. Except of course when they speak of London where billions has been spent to maintain that city's best-in-class transport system. We are still committed to the nonsense of high speed rail (and let's be clear that opposition isn't just about a bunch of Buckinghamshire NIMBYs) even though the case is becoming ever flimsier:

The MPs also question the assumptions made about savings to business travellers using the line. They say it is not the case that the time spent on a train is unproductive because in fact many use the train as an extension to the office.

The report also highlights a failure in the planning for HS2 to consider the benefits and costs of alternatives such as investment in broadband and video conferencing.

There is a real need for investment in public transport - you only have to look at the local impact of extensions to tram systems in Manchester and Sheffield to appreciate its importance. However, we need to focus on local intensity, on linking places within a city-region to other places within that system. The aim should be to replicate the scale, scope and integration of London's system in, for example, the urban conglomeration stretching from Liverpool to Leeds.

Thirty odd billion wouldn't get us all the way to that ideal but it would be a whole lot more value than spending the same on a vanity project that - we now know - contains no noticeable economic benefits.  High speed rail will not make the North more successful whereas the proven technologies of buses, trams and local trains will have a positive impact and will provide real, tangible and short-term benefits for real people.

.....

Government lobbying itself again...this time it's HS2 Ltd

****

HS2 Ltd is the company set up to develop and promote the project. At this point, all you need to know is that:

HS2 Ltd is a company wholly owned by the Department for Transport.

Yesterday a job opportunity popped into my in box - unsurprisingly from the Guardian's jobs section. Following the link took me to this:

Head of Public Affairs

Reference: PAF006
Salary: up to £97,398 + Benefits
   
The Head of Public Affairs will be defining the strategy and leading HS2’s relationships with key stakeholders, the public and the media.
  
Closing date: 21st May 2012

Nice job! Over £100,000 for what is essentially a lobbying job - after all the "go ahead" for HS2 isn't a "go ahead" but the government's stated intention to put a bill before parliament to enable the project to happen. So the main point and purpose of this "public affairs" position will be to make sure that this happens - that MPs and Lords are suitably smoothed, that ministers don't wobble and that other parts of government such as the treasury don't nobble.

Despite stating they would stop the practice, this is the government funding an organisation so it can - in part - lobby the government.

....

So HS2 is a project where "successful delivery of the project is in doubt"

****
 

The Cabinet Office "major projects team" thinks this of the High Speed Rail nonsense:

"...HS2 has been given the poor rating of "AMBER/ RED". This means "that successful delivery of the project is in doubt with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas. Urgent action is needed to ensure these are addressed, and whether resolution is feasible".

Remind me again why we are doing this?

....

Ah, that high speed rail thing again...

****

...and how it's impact will not be what we're told:

If building great roads and trains were the route to lasting prosperity, Greece and Spain would be booming. The past 30 years have seen a huge splurge in infrastructure spending, often funded by the EU. The Athens metro is excellent. The AVE fast-trains in Spain are a marvel. But this kind of spending has done very little to change the fundamental problems that now plague both Greece and Spain – in particular, youth unemployment.

Worse, in some ways, EU funding for infrastructure has created problems. In Greece, milking the EU for subsidies became an industry in itself: and political connections were a surer route to wealth than entrepreneurial flair.

Doesn't look that promising, eh?

Not looking good for HS2's economic case is it?

****

The grand vanity project that is High Speed 2 - a fancy train set rushing the wealthy of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester away to London so much faster - is fast losing any limited investment credibility:

The Department for Transport has revised down its estimates of the economic benefits of the proposed High Speed 2 rail line to just £1.20 for every pound invested.

And that's with all the speculative nonsense that goes into economic return estimates for these sort of infrastructure schemes. In truth the project - even the slightly more viable  London-Birmingham bit - will be as loss-making as the Humber Bridge and the Channel Tunnel.

And we should expect further quiet downgrading of the returns:

The revision downwards is the fourth made by the government since its original estimate in March 2010 of £2.40 for every pound invested. The latest revision comes after an adjustment to an estimate published in January, which had calculated the benefits to be £1.40 for every pound invested. 

Of course the government - and the fans of HS2 - tell us that there are other benefits that "reach well beyond transport economics." Absolutely, it'll be a shiny train set that they can show off about. That's why we're doing it - it has little transport benefit and no economic benefit.

But that's fine because a bunch of people who won't be using the line support it:

Other documents released by the government today showed that a majority of those living in the most deprived areas within nine miles of the proposed London to West Midlands HS2 route support the project. 

Now that's a very specific survey there - or rather a very carefully selected group. It's not that people support the scheme or that people within nine miles of the route support the scheme, it's that the "most deprived" places within that second group support the scheme!

Does this not seem like a bit of a mistake yet?

....

Is there actually a business case for HS2 - or is it just anecdote?

****

From the select committee enquiry into the proposed high speed railway to Birmingham comes this gem from Sir Brian Briscoe, the boss of HS2 Ltd:

"We have not measured the wider economic benefits of improved connectivity. But, anecdotally, people in the West Midlands have said that transport improvements would drive other kinds of economic improvements."

We are - it seems - to spend billions on building a railway we might not need on the basis of "anecdote".

....

So the really fast train is just a means for rich folk to get to London quicker!

****

Or that's the view of HS2's main proponent, Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary:

"Uncomfortable fact number one is that the railway is already relatively a rich man's toy. People who use the railway on average have significantly higher income - simple fact."

So not for the likes of you and me then! And not a great way of improving the North's economy either.

....

We need investment in local transport not another grand rail scheme

You will know that I am not especially keen on the proposals for a high speed train, initially to Birmingham and subsequently along two spurs to Manchester and Leeds respectively.  And – in anyone’s book – this is going to cost a great deal of money (I am using the cost figures from supporters of HS2):

HS2 phase one: London to Birmingham (The phase currently up for debate), construction start date 2015/16 completion 2026. Time frame from planning to completion 15 years. Total cost £15.8 to £17.4 Billion for construction plus £2.8 billion for rolling stock all 50+ units. That makes for a total cost of £18.6 to £20.2bn over 15 years.

Let’s call the cost for the link to Birmingham, £20billion – a nice round figure. Now, leaving aside the fact that our public finances simply don’t have that kind of money, is this the best use of such a large public investment?  It seems a little group call itself the North West Business Leadership Team think that it is:

“As members of the North West Business Leadership Team, we know that economic growth in the north of England is already being choked off by a lack of capacity in its increasingly busy transport links...”

It seems that the ability of besuited business leaders to get to that ever so vital meeting in London is compromising the economic development of the North? I guess that low skill levels, high taxes and the low levels of business start-ups have nothing to do with the underperformance of the North! And, let’s be clear here, the proposals for a new train set will not be completed until at least 2030 but in the meantime businesses in Manchester, Leeds and Bradford will have to struggle on with the clunky old train set we have at the moment! So not a contribution to solving the current economic problems - maybe the recession after next?

And remember folks that the North West Business Leadership Team was keen on another big white elephant – one that thankfully the North West’s voters nobbled – the Greater Manchester congestion charge!

Mike Blackburn, Chairman of the NWBLT’s Transport Group and the North West Regional Director of BT, said: "The government’s package of support amounts to £1,000 for every man, woman and child living in Greater Manchester today.

"Provided the promised infrastructure investment is in place before road pricing is introduced, we believe it is right that part of the cost of improvements should be borne by those who choose to travel by car at peak times."

So I guess these folk – sitting in their universities, banks and management consultancies – have form. Which brings me, dear reader, to the question – if you had £20billion to spend on public transport improvements, what would you spend it on? I’m pretty confident that addressing a multitude of backlogged road schemes (anyone for a tunnel under Saltaire?), local rail improvements, bus initiatives and motorway junction upgrades could be done for this sort of cash.

And these improvements would directly benefit millions of people – the ones for whom shaving a few minutes off the trip to London isn’t a real benefit at all. Journey’s to work, to local centres and to visit friends or family will be quicker, easier and more pleasant. Elderly people in Cullingworth might have a little more choice as the investment could support rural access and better bus networks. I think you get the gist – building a grand railway at huge cost brings little or no benefit to the vast mass of ordinary people. Investing in local transport systems benefits everyone not just the lucky few who have a need to go to London and the wherewithal to afford the high fares.

If the panjandrums of big business in Manchester want to have a grand new railway, here’s a suggestion – why don’t they pay for it themselves?

 ....