Chiltern Liberal Democrats

Did anyone see the C4 news the other night? An interesting article of the latest twist of the ghost train saga - apparently it's now recognised that Euston can't cope and the suggestion is that HS2 will terminate at Old Oak Common, where a new Canary Wharf will also be built. This is five miles from central London and would be accessed via Crossrail.

So, apart from now requiring a change of train to use HS2, it also has a standard speed train journey on Crossrail and an interchange, adding how much to the journey time? Say 30 minutes - to be generous. How many people will want to take two trains to get to Birmingham in order to save less than 10 minutes in total, less the journey from the south side of Brum to the centre, a saving of maybe 3 minutes in total now. Current high speed train time is 1hr 25 end to end, HS2 hope for 47 mins, plus the extra 30 mins, makes 1 hr 17, plus a short journey to central Brum - potentially using the Extra High Speed train will take longer!

If this is the situation, then HS2's business case needs to be recalculated. Our hypothetical fat cat saves X time x Y value of his time is now reduced by what percentage? and removing much if not all of the spurious benefit if his being able to do that deal (or have a lie in) in the theoretically saved time. Not to mention of course that travellers will not want a change of trains and pay a premium so won't use HS2 anyway. Quite why the New Canary Wharf will need a dedicated shuttle to Birmingham wasn't explained. Are we about to built the world's most expensive ghost train?

With an economic rationale like that we could just about make Italy look like a model of fiscal probity.

What price an 'integrated' transport strategy?

The Parliamentary Select Committee has just published its detailed findings
on what the Government describe as 'controversial proposals' on HS2. I am
tempted to ask is this the 'end of the beginning' or the 'beginning of the
end'. Perhaps it is neither, just like the spin being put on this report by
the Westminster publicity machine, to me it looks pretty much like 'back to
the beginning' - let's hope so.

If you believed the headlines in the media on the morning of Tuesday 8th
November you could be forgiven for believing that this important
Parliamentary committee has come down in favour of the current HS2 proposals
- it hasn't. It has in fact quite clinically dissected the current
proposals and hung them out to dry. What it has done, and what most
opponents to HS2 would agree with, it has come out in favour of High Speed
Rail as a concept and in favour of the principle that our strategic
infrastructure is tired and old and needs upgrading.

In doing so, it has levelled a series of criticisms of HS2 Ltd, the
Department for Transport, and the Government generally that, taken in the
round, are a crying indictment of arrogance and incompetence on the grand
scale. Let me expand on this; in the opening paragraph to its conclusions
and recommendations section (page 55 of the report) the Committee has
unambiguously stated that any assessment of the merits of the scheme is
hampered by the absence of a 'transport strategy'. Apparently to some, the
Prime Minister and previous Secretary of State for Transport included, the
lack of a properly thought out strategy doesn't appear to be a problem, but
to those of us who have taken the time and trouble to look into this matter,
and now the Parliamentary Select Committee, it is a fundamental flaw.

Just to be clear, the Government is proposing to spend £32 billion on a
single transport scheme that may or may not help develop the North (the
committee's conclusion). In reality it is a transport scheme of
questionable merit, that will only be used by a relatively small proportion
of the population(mostly senior business men); without first considering the
alternatives, without first properly considering the needs of the many. If
it wasn't true it could be the plot line for a Tom Sharp novel, or a
Discworld story perhaps.

It should be noted that the last full review of our transport
infrastructure, back in 2006 (the Eddington Report), came to the unambiguous
conclusion that there wasn't a case for high speed rail. What has changed
between then and now to alter that? In transport terms very little. In
political and economic terms, we now inhabit a very different place, and
judging it on the basis of this report, it is one that is just a little bit
surreal.

Almost whatever aspect of the Government's HS2 proposals the committee
looked at raises challenging issues. Whilst singly, none of them are a
'show stopper', taken all together the Government will find it very
difficult to sell this ill conceived, and poorly managed, scheme to a
sceptical public. In the rest of this short piece I review some of the
points the committee make in their report.

One of the key themes in the report is the need for continued spending on
less glamorous rail projects that the committee says 'many believe' have
long been under funded. Interestingly, they throw down a challenge to the
Government which in their own words will be an 'acid test' of their
commitment to the rest of the rail network. That test will be next July
(the date of the 'High Level Output Specification - 2014 to 2019). What
does this mean to the HS2 project? In effect the committee is saying that
the HS2 project needs to be part of a larger scheme of infrastructure
projects if it is to deliver the benefits that are promised.

On the face of it that seems straightforward, however, given the economic
realities at the moment this would appear to be improbable (only last week
the Government indicated it was unwilling to fully fund a major rail upgrade
in Manchester, the so called 'Northern Hub'). The truth is that the
Government can hardly afford HS2, let alone a long list of other and equally
important projects.

Time. Time has been at the centre of one of the most contentious issues in
this debate. The Government has put a very high value on time saved
travelling (not just for business people, but leisure travellers as well).
Quite rightly the committee has questioned this and recommended that
alternative methods of calculation are used instead of, or along side, the
existing ones. Those of us opposed to this scheme are delighted by this
apparently small point - as it has the potential to light up those dark
corners of detail that will, in the end, show the weakness of the case for
the current scheme.

Train frequency has been another point of contention. How many trains the
line can take has a very big impact on the financial viability of the
current project and in order to make the numbers work the Government has
chosen 18 trains per hour. Nowhere in the world has this been achieved and
in France they only have 13. The committee has called for the Government to
justify its case - this is something many of us have been trying to get the
Government to do for a long time, perhaps there is a reason for the
Government's reticence, we await with interest their response to this
demand.

The route. The report questions why the choice of a maximum speed of 250
mph, that makes it a very high speed line which, in consequence, places
severe limitations on its flexibility (it has to go in straight lines,
irrespective of the countryside it is cutting through). The committee also
called for the business case to assign a monetary value to the rural
landscape it will despoil, undoubtedly impacting the business case.
Importantly they then go on to say that HS2 Ltd should reconsider its
proposed route, taking the above into account, and place greater emphasis on
following existing transport corridors. The message is very clear - the
design speed needs to be rethought and that has a big impact on the choice
of route.

All in all, the lack of a proper transport strategy and the above points,
and others, add up to calling on the Department of Transport to 'go back to
the drawing board'. The headlines may have been spun, but the devil, for
the Government, really is in the detail. There is nothing wrong with
improving our strategic rail infrastructure, there is nothing wrong with
high speed rail, but there is everything wrong with the current HS2 project
and the ineptitude of the Department of Transport.

To reward those of you who have read to the end, the national policy of the Labour Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties is currently to support HS2. The UKIP 2010 manifesto called for three high speed lines, so goodness knows how they were all to be afforded, and the UKIP MEP for the North West is on record as welcoming HS2 as a boost for his area. The Green Party is currently against HS2.