Aug 2010 02

HS2 purported benefits are an illusion16

High speed rail is hugely expensive and therefore needs to deliver significant benefits to justify investing taxpayers’ money. However those lobbying for high speed rail have never put forward robust statistics showing benefits that the new high speed rail line High Speed 2 will actually deliver. The HS2 Action Alliance has released a report, which puts forwards damning evidence that important benefits claimed for HS2, by HS2 Ltd – the company set up by the Government to consider the case for the new line – and other proponents, are illusory.

The whole project is predicated on dramatic rises in demand for high speed rail. HS2 Ltd forecast substantial increases in the demand for HS2 over the next 23 years. They estimate a 267% increase in demand for long distance travel on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and HS2 route, by 2033. This is made up of a ‘background trend’ increase of 133% by 2033 – an already impressive 3.4% per annum. But they also predict an extra 84% increase made up entirely of new trips, an extra modal shift of 25% from air and 25% from cars, generated by HS2.

Passenger demand in 2033: WCML plus HS2

Hs2table

That is an extremely confident prediction for HS2 demand, particularly when put in the context of demand forecasts for the Channel Tunnel rail link (CTRL), which is expected to see an increase of 16% by 2033.

HS2 Route Demand

 
HS2 Demand 2

Not only does the prediction of demand for HS2 not fit with the predictions for similar lines, it is also hard to reconcile it with recent experience.  Demand for domestic transport per person seems to have stopped increasing. Indeed research by Dr David Metz, suggests there has been no increase in the number of trips made or total distance journeyed since 1995. Before that there was a clear relationship between increases in GDP and distance travelled per person, however after 1995 travel per person plateaued while GDP continued to rise. This makes the claims that demand for HS2 will rise dramatically – particularly the idea major increases will come from trend increases and new trips – rather implausible.

Travelling time, journey numbers and distances per person (compared with GDP)

HS2 GDP 2

So what about increased demand due to modal shifts?  People using high speed rail instead of driving or flying. It is true that rail travel has increased since 1995, while car and coach travel has declined. Rail has therefore increased its share in a saturated market. However the modal shift predicted  by HS2 Ltd are a lot more radical than the modal shifts experienced by companies such as WCML and Virgin rail when they introduced new, speedier services.  The WCML and Virgin Rail saw a 70% increase in passenger journeys over 5.75 years uplift.  That increase is significantly less than is predicted for HS2. The HS2 Action Alliance state:

“To put figure in the same coin as the HS2 forecast (ie without the ‘background trend’ increase in demand), the uplift reduces to 41% above trend. This compares with the 71% above trend forecasted by HS2 Ltd.”

So what about the other benefits claimed by proponents of high speed rail? Proponents of HS2 make a lot of its supposed green credentials. However, as it is pointed out in the report HS2 Ltd only claim that HS2 is carbon neutral, not that it will lead to any significant reduction in emissions. Alternatives projects such as extending electrification would reduce emissions.

The HS2 Action Alliance High also point out that; “high speed trains will use more than twice as much power as conventional electric intercity trains, and perhaps four times as much running at 400km/hr. Unlike French TGVs, they will not start running on nuclear power.”

Another purported benefit of HS2 is the value of journey time savings.  HS2 Ltd put estimate that there would be  £8 of benefit for every journey to users. However the HS2 Action Alliance argue that estimate is based on the assumption that 100% of the travelling time that is saved would not have otherwise been useful. But reports from Virgin Rail and the DfT suggest that time on trains can be very productive due to free wifi and power points for laptops. If you instead assume that around half the time saved is a genuine gain in productive time, the HS2 Action Alliance calculates that the benefit for time savings reduces. Total HS2 user benefits would then be £11.9bn (at £4/journey).

Another argument for high speed rail – and the strangest by a long way – is that HS2 is needed because rail capacity needs to be increased. Indeed the former Chairman of High Speed 2 Ltd, Sir David Rowlands said that the reason for building a high speed network "…is not about speed per se: it is about capacity."

But as the HS2 Action Alliance point out there are plenty of ways to increase capacity on trains that don’t involve risking billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on a high speed rail project. Examples include de-classifying 1st class carriages to standard class. 1st class carriages are lightly used as companies and individuals try to reduce their costs. The HS2 Action Alliance estimate that declassifying 2 of the 4 1st class cars in a 9 car train gives about a 30% increase in effective capacity with no lead time, disruption, or cost (as 1st Class revenues remain unchanged).

Additional cars could also be added to trains. For example if 2 cars were added to a 9 car train 32% would be added to total seated capacity. This requires some works, e.g. to station platforms, to accommodate them but  that investment would be far lower cost than constructing  HS2.

It’s about time that politicians thought seriously about the supposed benefits of HS2 before pledging billions of taxpayers’ money to building it.

Related Posts

  • http://www.knightfrank.co.uk/residential/rural-consultancy/hs2.aspx HS2, London to Birmingham

    While Knight Frank takes no position on the merits or otherwise of the HS2 London to Birmingham scheme, it believes that the UK’s current planning system and the time it takes to implement large infrastructure schemes causes an unacceptable amount of uncertainty for those affected.

  • Richard

    ‘ Misconceptions, lack of understanding, distortions of established facts, myths on myths, ”carbon footprint massage Sir!” this report against HS2 has the lot.
    This bit is a cracker!
    Another argument for high speed rail – and the strangest by a long way – is that HS2 is needed because rail capacity needs to be increased. Indeed the former Chairman of High Speed 2 Ltd, Sir David Rowlands said that the reason for building a high speed network “…is not about speed per se: it is about capacity.”
    Whoever wrote this shows a total lack of common understanding over core reasons why HS2 is needed asap. The main uk railway network will be full by 2020. Please do some home work first. HS2 Action Alliance are just as bad with their half baked extra capacity released from existing trains idea. The extra capacity needed by 2030 will be huge, maybe HS2 Action Alliance will then suggest we all ride on the roofs of trains like India! Come on get real, the money lost to the economy from full-up congested uk roads is expected to reach around 29 billion pounds between now and 2030 (that is a waste of money). Get those longer distance people and goods out of their increasingly costly carbon heavy cars and HGV lorries on to rail powered by more ‘green’ electricity. HS2 will economically transform this country as the early railways did (as high speed lines are now doing all over the world). It’s called commonsense (very rare in this day and age I know).

  • Andrew Gibbs

    You miss the point on capacity – even if the demand does indeed appear (and history does not support these claims) you do not need the highest speed railway to serve it! To get lorries and cars off the roads you require relatively low speed rail for freight and commuting across the whole country, not a glory project to benefit a few at tremendous cost (fiscal and ecological). Of course this is not politically sexy. Commonsense says that we should look very closely at the hyped claims for these prestige projects, as past evidence indicates we will be left with yet another overpriced and underused white elephant (e.g. Millenium Dome, Humber bridge, Concorde, or even HS1!)

  • Richard

    Oh dear, you’ve been had on their distorted capacity issue, hook line and sinker. Lets deal with true facts. Rail travel is booming, 1.4 billion journeys last year and still rising as people switch from gridlocked roads. More trains running now than since 1946, South half of West Coast Main Line almost full at peak times. Fast freight growth of almost 60% over past 10 years, rail passenger growth of 60% over same period. Further 60% expected to switch to rail between now and 2030, same for fast freight which HS2 will relieve capacity for along with more local semi fast passenger stopping trains required. Passenger satisfaction at an all time high, punctual trains at an all time high. Much more investment in existing rail than ever before. Long closed lines reopening for passenger use. HS1 in profit now as Eurostar travel grows even stronger and new local high speed services attract an extra 6000 users per day since March. Fast freight to and from Europe soon to start through the tunnel. HS1 built on time and within budget. Of course they will have no interest in telling you all this, spoils their story you see! The dome, yes an utter waste of money, Concorde, very sad, many millions would disagree with you all over the world.

  • David

    Richard you live in cloud cuckoo land. Other than ‘the wealthy’, buisiness excutives and politicians, who is going to afford to use HS trains? Hs2 cannot take commercial traffic; no one from Birmingham,Coventry,Rugby,Leamington etc would envisage travelling all the way upto the ‘new international’station,to travel South . HMG/HS2 will cut an excellent existing 3x/hour service from W’hampton to Euston to try and force people to use HS2. Why on earth has the speed to be 400kph other than we’re better than all the ‘others’. David aged 76 with most of my cranial faculties working well!
    Spend all this marvellous suddenly found cash to improve our existing rail and road networks, invest in better schools and health service. David

  • Richard

    ‘David, HS2 like HS1 will be constructed to take fast freight as well, if this is required at a later date through and from the channel tunnel, plus North South UK domestic freight if needs arise. Who will be able to afford car fuel at perhaps £10 a gallon in 2026? You seem a little confused (as many understandably are) over the role of HS2. It will not be necessary to force people to use HS2, anymore than you are forced to use the M40 or any other motorway! People who presently use the WCML for much longer non-stop point to point travel will switch to HS2. Those who have a shorter journey will use the WCML as now, with released capacity for more trains, not less as you suggest. Not sure which ‘new international station’ you refer to. If you live in an area close to an HS2 stop like Birmingham or London (or Manchester/Leeds phase 2 construction) you may choose to use that service to travel long distance North or South. If you have a shorter journey you would use your nearest ‘classic’ line station that takes you to your desired destination (especially if not covered by an HS2 destination). Come on, this is not rocket science! The line will be constructed to take speeds of 400kph because rail speeds are increasing world wide. It makes economic sense to build this requirement in from start of construction rather than the cost of adding it later on. Sadly, it is very clear many in this country have no idea just how congested our travel will be over the next 30 years without projects like HS2. You have a choice to make. A blinkered Dr Beeching approach your travelling children will not thank you for, or carry on as we are and hope for the best. Now that last option is cloud cuckoo land!

  • http://www.gamegoldfast.com/ffxiv/buy-ffxiv-gil.php ffxiv gil

    HS2 is not only a demand forecasting is not suitable for the same line with the forecast, it is difficult to reconcile with recent experience. Per capita domestic transport demand seems to have stopped increasing. In fact, David Boshimeisi study, recommendations were not made or action and the total number of distance increase since 1995. Prior to this, there is a per capita gross domestic product and a clear relationship between the increase in distance traveled, but stabilized in 1995 after the people travel, and each GDP continued to rise. This makes the claim of HS2 sharp rise in demand – especially those who are the main growth will come from the increase in travel trends and new – and not credible.

  • Richard

    So the 5 Million extra trains required in the uk to meet demand to date since 2005 did not happen then! This huge increase in train usage continues to rise even now, despite the economic downturn. Massaging the travel data (and the carbon data) seems to be ‘order of the day’ with protest groups against HS2. You might convince your supporters but not the real world.

  • http://adamcollyer.wordpress.com Adam Collyer

    “There are plenty of ways to increase capacity on trains that don’t involve risking billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on a high speed rail project”
    Indeed. And the simplest, which you don’t mention, is of course to run more frequent trains!

  • Richard

    Adam, I say again to all, people must try to do some home work first before posting. If it were as simple as you suggest, do you not think this is what would be done! I repeat, our railway network is becoming full up. 5 million extra trains to meet increasing demand over the past 5 years. Within the next 15 years it will not be possible to add any more trains at peak times, not even longer trains. The reason for this is complex but I will try to explain and simplify. Every route of a railway is split into signaling sections to enable the safe passage of trains without one train running into the back of a second. The sections are very long to reflect the highest speed trains that use that route to enable those trains to brake slow down and come to a stop if required by the signals, because a slower train is ahead on the same line. There comes a point when all these signal sections contain as many trains as the signaling allows, no further trains can be released to travel over that line. In other words, you and your extra trains would be waiting all day in the sidings to travel over a line that was full to capacity in the first place. I hope this explains why a new railway is proposed to free up capacity so people can still travel long distance in 20 years time and very fast too. Road fuel maybe around £10 a gallon by then and the roads gridlocked and full anyway. Why do you think so many are using the train now?

  • Andrew Gibbs

    Others far wiser than me seem to have done homework including the DfT itself with its rail package 2 – solving the capacity problem for 1/10th of the cost of HS2, and in a manner that can be achieved both quicker and incrementally (useful if the ‘problem’ turns out to be smaller than forecast). Capacity need and other ‘myths’ are discussed further in the HS2AA paper of which the latest version is available now.
    BTW, I am happy to declare my personal perspective on all of this is as someone who would be directly affected by the proposed line (AKA ‘moaning NIMBY’). However what this means is that unlike the great mass of the UK population I’ve bothered to look into this subject. When first announced my expectation was that I would be fighting for personal mitigation, compensation, etc. however what I see is that this project should not be in anyones backyard! The scheme is so expensive (cash and ecological), has so little unique benefit, and to so few people that I really find it hard to contemplate why it has got so far. But then at the other end of the divide there are people who will definitely win (engineering companies, the owner of Birmingham airport, etc) so there is a lot of will to spend our money for their benefit – and politicians are easy to fool with something shiny! (sorry to be cynical about this). Richard – what is the background on your position? I don’t mean this to be personal in any way, but genuinely wish to know what it is I’m missing that makes HS2 a good thing for the country as a whole.

  • Richard

    ‘Not sure why only those affected by HS2 in their area should presume they alone have the right HS2 homework answers and evaluations. They may simply have teachers who are telling them what they want to hear! As someone who has worked within the rail industry for 40 years and since become a rail and transport analyst, I am still always amazed by the number of ‘overnight’ transport/carbon/business experts who pop up every time a major transport project arises. Some may be deserving of the phrase, most appear to be ordinary people who simply repeat information gleaned from their local protest group or local paper and seem to convince themselves it must be true, especially if we all say the same thing often and loud enough. Public transport is a complex subject and not easy to interpret to an ultimate closed conclusion. Many changeable factors over time can influence the eventual desired outcome, for better or worse. All of these different scenarios and current trends have to be modelled into any transport project such as HS2, which is why some of their documents appear, at first glance, contradicting to those not familiar with transport modelling. You only get out what you put in. Leave certain things out (current rail trends over the past ten years in particular) and you get the end result you wanted in the first place, as in the case of the HS2AA paper and their ‘myths’ section. The rail package two report you mention would only be a ‘temporary fix’ and the history of this type of rail package tells us far more rail disruption and associated costs could occur in later years if rail use continues to increase as it is world wide. HS2 benefits/business case? Have a look at the latest independently produced KPMG report for Greengage 21 released back in April who feel the business case for HS2 is understated and may produce a much higher economic return than previously estimated.
    I well remember the planning/building of the M40 and the common voiced protest at the time, ‘but who will use it’ and ‘the countryside will never recover’ or ‘it’s not worth building’, wonder if those same protesters only use A or B roads now!

  • vivien

    Richard
    Could you possibly answer Andrew’s question? Who are you and what is your background and interest in this subject?
    This would help us greatly in our analysis of the arguments.

  • Richard

    Vivien.
    Please see my last post.

  • Andrew Gibbs

    It’s been a while, but here are a few comments responding to Richards earlier post;
    Firstly, I personally don’t think that HS2 nimbys have all the answers at all, so you are a little presumptive in your presumptions! As mentioned earlier I am looking for answers and certainly not presenting myself as an expert – neither do I believe do most people in similar circumstances. There is in fact an element of arrogance in much of the official output (especially at the political end), i.e. ‘we are (or employ) the experts therefore we must be right, we don’t have to explain ourselves’. And for ‘They may simply have teachers who are telling them what they want to hear!’ – admittedly it is easier to hear the points made by people giving the answer you want to hear – but that is a problem that applies to both sides of the argument.
    On the subject of experts I’m sure you know what you are talking about, but equally I’m sure there are many experts who only see things from their own perspective (such as technological possibilities) rather than the wider questions of economics and need. But again, this concept that ‘everyone knows’ trains are green and good is very deeply entrenched in the minds of politicians and all – if you had asked me last year I would have joined this chorus without question. Just because any one group says something it does not mean it’s true, and when the answer is so huge it is worth checking it carefully (and just as importantly checking that the question you asked is the right one!)
    On the subject of modelling – Fair point, this is all very complex. Given the benefit of hindsight it would appear that the models failed in their forecasts for use of Eurotunnel and HS1 – has anything been done differently this time around to give us more confidence in the predictions? At the moment the thing that seems to be put into the HS2 model is more and more people until out pops the answer being looked for…
    Conversely I think it is wrong to dismiss the alternative solutions with phrases such as ‘temporary fix’ and ‘if rail use continues to increase as it has world wide’ – that’s a big if, and works both ways! The UK is not the rest of the world, but a small, highly populated island where population is rising only slowly. Rising transport usage – it can be shown that this has been static in last decade not growing, and as for the future have you ever heard of the internet? There is certainly a shortfall in capacity right now, and this alternative package addresses that in a timely fashion rather than HS2 offering absolutely nothing for 17 years, and then too much!
    On the subject of the business case and other viewpoints -There are undoubtedly lots of positive factors other than the spurious ‘x,000 men earning £70k saving half-an-hour = £y’ that seems to be the cornerstone of the HS2 analysis! These benefits may be hard to quantify but still they should be given a value and put into the pot so that they can be seen to be part of the decision making process, (I’d far rather see argument for an xbillion benefit from agglomeration than from un-attainable passenger numbers!) Also into the pot should be put other factors such as environmental issues – again hard to put in monetary terms but this is definitely not the zero that is currently assumed. I would observe as well that Greengage21 may be independent but that does not mean they are without bias (to be fair they state as much), and their reports should be read with that in mind just as you should do with the HS2AA reports. I note that Greengage21 have a ‘preview’ report on how marvellous HS1 is, but this does not seem to have turned into an analysis of the final outcome? And their report on future fare structure for HS2 is frankly nonsense, as what people would or would not eventually pay on HS2 is dependent on what politicians choose at the time – it is a product of the state so you could make all fares £1 if desired (and the subsidies might not even be that much increased to do that)
    Talking about roads is a bit of a red-herring as only an idiot would say ‘all infrastructure is bad’! The country is full of projects that worked well (and I’m sure all were campaigned against by someone) but unfortunately also has plenty that were basically expensive dead ends – and this is what people should be looking out for. Rails was the foundation of the industrial revolution, but remember at that time it was replacing the horse and canal boats. Now we are talking about squeezing ‘highest speed rail’ into the gap left by ‘pretty fast rail’ and ‘very fast aeroplanes’ which is a far less certain question.
    The problem is that the error bars in the whole HS2 project are huge – certainly enough that if more than one or two assumptions don’t work out as expected that the net benefit becomes much smaller and may even become negative (i.e. NBR < 1). But we are getting bogged down in questions about whether HS2 makes sense or not independent of anything else – this is not the key point, but rather what is the best way for the country to invest for everyone’s future. If HS2 could be built by magic for a pound then it would certainly make perfect sense. Unfortunately this is not what Arup are offering, so given the limited amount of money available (always an issue, and especially at the moment) HS2 should be put in the context of what other projects could be financed that give a bigger and/or more certain and/or more speedy return on investment. High speed broadband, not high speed rail!

  • Isle8harriet

    the idea of giving an extra half hour to a fraction of the country’s business men, as opposed to improving and maintaining the existing rail network for the population in general seems ludicrously like toys for boys. Our rail services need more stock, more line maintenance, more manpower, not an extravaganza .