Mar 2011 08

Bruce Weston, from the HS2 Action Alliance, has been taking a look at the arguments made by HS2 Ltd on the Spectator Coffee House in response to my article about the business case for the new high speed rail line.  Here are his responses to the two key arguments that Alison Munro, their Chief Executive, has made:

Demand

The Department of Transport’s rail demand model assumes that for every 1 per cent more income, people will spend 2.8 per cent more on trips to London (economists would say it has fixed demand elasticities).  Clearly that can’t go on for ever!  The DfT’s previous approach of stopping such escalations at 2026 recognised that people will not keep spending an ever larger proportion of their earnings this way.  Sir Rod Eddingon in his review of transport priorities expressed concern about using this very same model for making forecasts over 10 years.  Last year DfT pushed this to 25 years (to 2033).  Now they are using it to make forecasts for 35 years (to 2043)!

We may need to make decisions about long lead time and long life projects, but we cannot sanely make them using forecasts based on stretching the period over which demand grows compared to people’s income to be ever longer until we get the answer we want.

Value of time

Recognising that people can, do, and increasingly will work on trains simply sinks the case for HS2.  The supposed productivity gain from reducing long distance train journey times is the largest benefit DfT attribute to HS2.  Without it the business case collapses.

But what of crowding?  Alison Munro is right, crowding can prevent both business and leisure travellers using their time productivily.  But on DfT’s projections (both in the consultation material, and in last March’s documentation), HS2 actually has more crowding than the alternative of upgading the WCML – for example they expect to double London – Manchester volumes, but their plans for Phase 1 of HS2 (between 2026 and 2033) provide no increase in capacity on the route!  And improvements to the existing services can be made incrementally and relatively quickly, so preventing crowding from ever becoming severe.  So another strike against HS2.

And people switching from cars and planes?  Yes they may get some productivity benefit, but DfT think that they will only be 13 per cent of passengers – the other 87 per cent come from transfer from conventional rail services and entirely new journeys.  And those travelling on planes will be able to use mobile technologies and be as productive as people on trains many years before HS2 could be built.

Matthew is Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, author of Let Them Eat Carbon and editor of How to Cut Public Spending (and still win an election)



  • Eghancock

    thankgoodness at last ,the data we are being sold by mr hammond is not fooling everyone.
    The article does not say that HS2 would reduce sevices from smaller cities and towns.
    Also it will cause the slowing of trains coming into London.Those abroad are not all
    wonderful either Lille has the highest unemployment in France.The Frankfurt to Cologne
    has benefited Frankfurt to the detrement of Cologne.That foom a banker who works there.

  • Eghancock

    thankgoodness at last ,the data we are being sold by mr hammond is not fooling everyone.
    The article does not say that HS2 would reduce sevices from smaller cities and towns.
    Also it will cause the slowing of trains coming into London.Those abroad are not all
    wonderful either Lille has the highest unemployment in France.The Frankfurt to Cologne
    has benefited Frankfurt to the detrement of Cologne.That foom a banker who works there.

  • SMAGchair

    Why am I suddenly more likely to work on a high speed train? Does my work ethic or practice change when I step on to the HS2 platform? You may as well say that I am more likely to work on a red train than a blue one!

  • Kassiearcher

    AT LAST! Thankyou for explaining so articulately the way in which figures are being manipulated to show a case for HS2 and illustrating so well that it CANNOT be justified without doing so.

  • Allan Whittow

    A government keen to make the right choices would provide consultation data on several alternatives, but anyone who has set his heart on a particular outcome is likely to switch arguments as each one collapses. On the growth forecast, either we don’t need more capacity, or we need it so badly we can’t wait till 2026. Why not put in train some of the West and East Coast Main Line increments now while we find out

  • Maddom

    If train services are so overcrowded already and we need more capacity, why aren’t we forcing train operators to utilise their rolling stock more effectively. Every intercity train I travel on seems to have 2-3 carriages dedicated to 1st class, but with only 8-10 poeple travelling 1st class IN TOTAL. Also, if all those high-flying business types aren’t using current premium rail services, why on earth does the government think that they’re suddenly going to have a change of heart because they’ll get to their destination 20 minutes quicker. Anyone with any business sense will be having a web conference in the comfort of their office!