The first stage of the high-speed rail link between London and England's northern cities has been approved. But, asks John Humphrys, is it really a good idea, or just an environmentally-damaging waste of time and money?
The Government has given the go-ahead for the first high-speed rail system in Britain. Unusually for such a major project, the plan attracts cross-party support. But that does not mean it is uncontroversial. Far from it. Opposition in some quarters is so strong that the proposal could still be scuppered in the courts. Opponents say it is merely a political vanity project with little economic justification. Supporters say it is nothing less than essential for the future prosperity of the country. Which is it?
The plan announced by the Transport Secretary, Justine Greening, in the Commons this week, is to be put into effect in two stages. First, a high-speed line will be built between London and Birmingham. By 2026, trains will be running between the two cities at 225mph, cutting around forty minutes off the journey time. A new station will be constructed in the centre of Birmingham and Euston station in London will be rebuilt. In the capital, the new line will link up with the Channel Tunnel rail line and, in due course, with Heathrow airport. The total cost of this first stage will be £16.3bn.
Seven years later the plan is for two branches to extend north from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds, halving the time it takes to travel by train from London to these two cities. That will cost a further £16.4bn. By then it’s expected that the development will increase the country’s overall rail capacity by 26,000 seats an hour.
In general, governments have been trying to steer travellers on to trains and away from other forms of transport, partly to ease congestion on the roads and partly for environmental reasons. Trains (or some of them) generate fewer carbon emissions than cars and planes. The privatisation of the railways was controversial, not least for the way it split control of the trains themselves from the operation of the track, creating increased costs, higher subsidies and greater bureaucracy. Even so, the number of people musing trains has increased a lot since then. Some commentators argue that this trend is likely to continue because there is some evidence that our love affair with cars is starting to cool. In this context, it’s argued, high speed rail is an essential development. The Government hopes the new plan will encourage 4.5 million air travellers and 9 million car drivers to switch to the train.
Ms Greening told the Commons bluntly that 'we can’t afford not to do this'. Her case is that the existing west coast mainline system will have reached breaking point by the 2020s and be beyond any 'patch and mend' solution. The new line is essential to relieve pressure on it. Halving travel time between London and cities in the Midlands and the north will be good for business and the regeneration of the northern economy.
That’s certainly the view of northern cities. Council leaders in both Manchester and Leeds have welcomed the decision. Richard Lewis, Leeds city council member for economic development, said: 'High-speed rail would not only transform rail journeys to and from the north of England, it would also bring massive benefits in terms of the potential for Leeds and the surrounding area to develop further as a major hub for business.'
In political terms, this may help to explain the cross-party consensus on the issue. The plan was originally dreamt up by the last Labour government whose Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, was a passionate supporter of the plan. He still is. Labour hopes it will help to regenerate its heartlands in the north. Equally, the Prime Minister seems anxious to prove that his Tory party is serious about wanting to do something about the widening north/south divide and, in the process, improve his party’s electoral prospects in the north. It’s also estimated that the first stage will create 40,000 jobs, something of both economic and political benefit at a time of rising unemployment.
Opponents, however, argue that the supposed benefits evaporate under close scrutiny. They point out that the Government has reduced its own estimate of the plan’s value for money. Its latest figures suggest that there will be a return of only £1.40 for every pound spent on the project, down from £1.60 only a year or so ago. This counts as 'low' value-for-money in Treasury terms and would normally, opponents argue, be laughed out of court by a Treasury anxious to ensure that scarce government funds are not misspent.
More generally, sceptics argue that high-speed rail works only for big countries like France with very large distances between the main cities. In that regard, Britain does not qualify. Nor are sceptics persuaded by the argument that increased speed is necessary for business. Time spent on trains is not wasted time for businessmen: you only have to watch them on their laptops to see that that is not the case.
As for encouraging more people to get on the trains, this, they say, is unlikely to turn out to be the case, since prospective fares are very high, making high-speed rail travel affordable only to the rich and the business people. They also question supposed environmental case. High-speed trains are far more carbon-costly than slower trains and cause real damage to the countryside. That’s because, in order for the trains to travel at such speed, the lines needs to be straight with the result that they have to carve through the countryside with little regard for what is there already. That is why there has been such outrage in the Chilterns, an area of outstanding natural beauty which, according to most of its residents, will be irreparably defaced by the new line, notwithstanding the extra money for tunnelling announced by Ms Greening this week. This is where legal challenge to the Government’s decision is likely to originate.
In a more general sense, opponents argue that the plan is being driven through without proper regard to the country’s wider transport problems. When he was still in opposition, David Cameron supported Lord Adonis’s plan in part arguing for it as an alternative to the building of a third runway at Heathrow, which he opposed (for electoral reasons, according to his critics). But high speed rail has little to do with airport policy, those critics say. The Government’s refusal to allow for expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted still leaves London with an airport problem. Some, like London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, say it can be solved only by building a new hub airport in the Thames estuary. If that turns out to be the solution, then, say the Government’s critics, it is planning to put high-speed rail in the wrong place.
So the two sides could hardly be further apart. Supporters argue it is a historic decision, comparable to the Victorian expansion of the railways that built Britain’s industrial strength in the nineteenth century. Opponents say it is an economically wasteful vanity project, comparable to Concorde and the vast sums wasted on supersonic air travel.
Who’s right?
- Do you support the decision to build a high-speed rail link from London to Birmingham and then to Manchester and Leeds?
- Do you think halving the journey time from London to these northern cities is a worthwhile aim?
- Do you think the economic case has been adequately made?
- Do you think the environmental effect on areas like the Chilterns is exaggerated or valid?
- What do you make of the argument that the plan does not fit properly into the country’s overall transport needs?
- In general, how important is rail travel to you?
- Have you used trains more in recent years?
- Do you feel more inclined to use the train rather than your car when you travel long distances than you did a few years ago?
- And if high-speed rail does become a feature of our national life, do you think it will make you want to use the trains more?
Let us know your views.
The government has finally given the go-ahead for the first high-speed rail system in Britain. Unusually for such a major project
