High-Speed Rail - Cart Before the Horse?

After a series of failed court appeals by a local campaign group, the proposed Aberdeen city bypass finally got the go-ahead in October last year. The new transport link will cost hundreds of millions – and almost certainly more than original estimates, because of delays caused by the long judicial process – and will not be completed for years to come.

The local authority has since announced that the new project will take priority, so that no major investment will be made in the existing network until after it is completed – ironic, given that a key purpose of the new link is to relieve the pressure on the current, outdated infrastructure.

Sound familiar?

The latest chapter in the story of High Speed 2 was written this week with the announcement of the proposed route of the project’s second phase between Birmingham and Manchester/Leeds – cue the re-opening of the national debate about just what it is for, who it will benefit, and what it will cost.

Despite being a clearly divisive issue, high-speed rail is also one of those rare subjects on which all three major political parties basically agree with each other. It was Labour who initiated the process in 2009, with the coalition government making only minor modifications to the strategic plans they inherited.

Opinion in the country seems to be much less united, with influential pressure groups such as the Taxpayers’ Alliance expressing major concerns not only about the project’s affordability per se, but whether it is a justifiable use of billions of pounds of public money, committed to at a time of recession and austerity.

Even putting that aside, the economic case for the line is far from compelling. If the purpose is to attract greater inward investment into the UK, the fact that the project’s completion may be nearly two decades away makes the scale of that investment almost impossible to quantify, let alone guarantee.

If it’s about linking north and south to better distribute the proceeds of growth, making London more accessible from the likes of Manchester and Leeds may send a mixed message. If the aim is to reduce demand for short-haul flights by providing a more viable alternative to aviation, arguably the money would be better spent improving Britain’s existing, ageing railways.

If it’s about enabling political and business leaders to wear a badge of honour already boasted by most of Britain’s economic rivals… well then it becomes clearer why these sorts are so eager to proceed, and why the public are so suspicious.

In an era when booming internet connectivity means doing business remotely is easier and more popular than ever, why is it so essential that travelling by rail between Britain’s hubs takes a little bit less time than it does currently?

To use the new line, people will still have to travel (via road or Victorian railway) to one of the big cities, squeezing the efficiency gains to be made, so why not invest in making the public transport options available to people on their doorstep more appealing – costing less money, and delivering much quicker results?

Britain has a poor recent record of major infrastructure projects, even during the boom years, and there is nothing to suggest this latest vanity project will be any different. That is not to say the Sage is against capital investment – quite the opposite; politicians with a long-term view of what is best for their country rather than a preoccupation with forthcoming elections are an all too rare species.

But the benefits of a scheme have to be in proportion to the costs, and be enjoyed by a sufficiently large section of the population whose taxes are funding it. High-speed rail, in its current incarnation and its current context, surely fails that test.