Fascinating piece that deconstructs the UK's Rube Goldberg machine of transport politics.
Much like the transcontinental railroad, no one volunteers to invest their own money on an obvious boondoggle, but when public money is offered, they line up. At least it creates jobs! Taking money away from some people to give it to other people to build a toy for the affluent takes a lot of work.Like similar lobbies for airlines, roads and defence, Greengauge 21 found ready backers in private industry eager for government contracts.
HS2 was always a project born of political vanity. Like several other unstoppable megaprojects, it was not rooted in commercial reality or value for money – and it has therefore not been halted by accusations that it is not needed and not worth the cost. It may have been a noble idea, but one that could only fly with huge amounts of public money, and that now is in short supply.
I'll be honest, I only initially started reading this out of respect for being personally mentioned. But it was actually fascinating, like you said. I was largely apathetic about HS2 but having read this article it's hard to ignore what a farce it all seems. I'm reluctant to share an opinion on what I'd do differently for fear of talking out of my arse. What I will say is a lot of railway infrastructure here is outdated. From a brief perusal of google, upgrading existing lines doesn't seem to be an option. The places that would be the focus of any redevelopment have already been upgraded three times (1960, 2004, 2008) and now offer diminishing returns. Not to mention that it would be outweighed by the years of mass disruption it would cause to existing lines. My preliminary conclusion is that maybe the UK does need something like HS2. However, the cost is ludcrious and the way it has proceeded through government until now is inadequate and needs to go back a good few steps. We need to make sure things are being done properly and that all alternatives, including variations on the existing HS2 model, are given due consideration. I do not think this will happen though, and they will pigheadedly plow ahead on the shaky foundation, for better or worse. Thanks for the mention, it was a good read.
Glad you liked it! I think it's fascinating that such a megaproject can actually withstand all forces that try to stop it, mostly because that's how politics works. They talk about Euston as if the HS2 part already built, even though it has barely left the drawing board. Here in the Netherlands we've "just" finished our big high-speed project, HSL Zuid, a line from Amsterdam (Airport) via Rotterdam to Belgium. There were two other high speed projects planned here. One from Amsterdam to Utrecht and Germany. A second would go from Amsterdam to the northern (rural-ish) provinces. Those lines didn't go through for all the same reasons that seem unable to stop the HS2. Most notably, the expected costs far outweighed the benefits even when you consider the social benefits like network effects and improved accessibility. Setting aside the cost-benefit part of the story I still think the HS2, as well as those proposed new lines here, would not be a good idea. (Even though I love high-speed trains.) This part of the story is essential but often ignored: Simple example: say you have a law firm in Leeds. Your market is whatever you can reach within 90 minutes, meaning you have some competition from other cities nearby like Manchester but that's about it. Suddenly, HS2 opens and you can reach London in 88 minutes. That sounds great - your market greatly expands so you can provide your goods to more people. However, this also means that competitors from London suddenly enter your market. Since they come from a more competitive environment, chances are that they are better lawyers and will kill your business in no time. This is the case for many professions and businesses whenever new roads or faster rails get built. There's a reason the North is skeptic about whether HS3 is in their benefit; most likely, it will not. New links always favor the strongest end of the link. On top of that, the cities that are bypassed by new, faster lines will be much more affected than one might expect. Now, most travelers between Birmingham and London stop at Milton Keynes. Since the new line ignores the city completely, it will become much less attractive for businesses and people to settle there. From an operations standpoint, Virgin could easily reduce the amount of trains going through that city since through-traffic doesn't need that rail anymore. It would also be a better allocation of platform capacity on the busy Euston and Birmingham stations. Here in the Netherlands a similar thing happened to Dordrecht, which used to be on the line between Rotterdam and Belgium. The high-speed train service skips it entirely and takes a more direct route south. It lost almost 10% of office jobs (often dependent on public transport) in the last year alone. With the new timetable next year, half of the Intercity trains will not call on the station but will go around it instead. Instead of having a great position in between larger cities, it's now being passed by.Similar doubts began to emerge over the most abstract justification for the project – that it would help mend the north-south divide. Studies of France’s TGV by an HS2 adviser, Roger Vickerman of Kent University, showed most benefits from new transport links went to the economically stronger end of the chain. This meant HS2 would merely make London even more magnetic an economic attractor.