Posted 1st April 2009 | 8 Comments
Arguments against high- speed lines are ‘comical’ says transport minister
A Eurostar speeds through Kent along HS1.
THE cost of not building high-speed lines to provide more rail capacity could be huge in terms of having to upgrade existing lines and the loss of economic benefits, transport minister Lord Adonis has warned.
The man who Gordon Brown has appointed to be in charge of major transport infrastructure projects made his comments in a major speech entitled ‘Time For High-Speed Rail?’
He accepted there was a high price for building new lines, but noted the experience of the 10-year plus project to upgrade the West Coast main line, which had just been “painfully completed”.
Lord Adonis said “an essentially patch-and-mend approach was adopted, to secure a transformation in capacity and service quality for much less than the cost of building an entirely new line”.
And while many benefits had been secured, and passengers had never had a better service, “it has not been an easy journey”.
The original mid-1990s spec was for a £4 billion upgrade to provide greater capacity, 140mph running and state-of-the-art signalling, as on High Speed One.
But the cost ended up at £8.8 billion for a ‘de-scoped’ project for 125mph running, new signalling postponed and capacity enhancement very much less than a new line would have achieved.
“Although there is a high price involved in building high-speed lines, there is also a high price involved in not building them when additional rail capacity is required anyway.
“This high price is measured not only in lost economic and social benefit but also in the direct cost of upgrading existing congested rail lines, which is very large indeed.
“For the future, we need to assess the relative merits, including money saved, of building new lines rather than highly disruptive and expensive major upgrades of existing lines.
“The Government projection is for a doubling of passenger demand by 2030. How far, on congested lines, growth is met by incremental upgrades, and how far by new lines, is a critical issue which will determine the development of commuter as well as high-speed lines.
“If the cost of disruption is fully taken into account, I suspect it is by no means clear that ostensibly lower-priced upgrades are always better value than new lines including new high-speed lines.”
Lord Adonis said HS1 works as well as any high-speed line on the planet, showing that Britain could provide world-class infrastructure to world-class standards.
It was in that spirit they had asked HS2 to propose a high-speed plan for a London-West Midlands line, with advice on possible extension to the great conurbations of the North West, West Yorkshire, North East and central Scotland.
Lord Adonis said high-speed rail was growing not only in France and Japan, but across Europe and Asia, while there were now schemes proposed in the US and Canada.
“This international experience is having a major impact on my thinking and that of the Government,” he said.
“In my view it is no longer a defensible position to oppose high-speed rail on the grounds of English exceptionalism.
“I saw somewhere recently the argument that we have less to gain from high-speed rail because our cities are closer together than those in France. This is frankly comical.
“We need to engage systematically with the experience of countries making a success of high-speed rail, and learn from it, which is currently what we are seeking to do.”
Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker said: “The costs of high-speed rail have often been over-estimated while the cost of the West Coast main line upgrade was excessive.
“Those who are opposed to high-speed rail need to think again – but it is essential that building high-speed rail is in addition to improving our local rail services. We need a real renaissance in our railway.”
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Mrs White, Banbury
Modernisation and moving with the times is all very well. Everyone is in a permenant hurry rushing to and from - but what about all of us who will have this new line on our backdoor step, literally (the plans go through our school playground) - our houses will never sell, the environment will never be the same. Everyone not affected seem quite happy with all of us but with 355 miles being covered there are many of us feeling that we have a lot of trouble coming our way!!!!!
I McNab, Manchester, UK
Why is it that everyone writing on here doesn't seem to have any 'real' knowledge of Maglev Transport! You all put your blinkers on and hope it will go away! "It Won't!". Yes Trains are great and have served us well, but it's time to move on! Make trains go much faster and your asking for trouble! I have pictures of what happens to wheels at high speed! They wear faster and crack, and so do the lines! So why not do away with the wheels and lines, be safe, plus go faster! NO, it's not more expensive! Check out: magnetbahnforum.de and join in on the forum if you really want to know! Please open your ears and eyes.
William Davison, Nottingham, UK
HS2 objective is not to go "north to south and vice versa as quickly as possible." if that was the case just build it straight line up the east coast, it would be a lot cheaper. HS2 needs to connect up the main population and economic centres. Healthrow is our main long haul fight airport, it is vital a transport hub and West side of London is economically important but is poorly severed by rail links, if you coming from the midlands or the North. I oppose the third runway as if it was well connect to Birmingham and Manchester by rail many internal flights would not be need. Birmingham could even server as a new Northern terminal to Heathrow, it would be only about 40 minutes away. Not all trains would stop at Heathrow anyway and going West out of London and then turning North to Birmingham would only add 10-15 miles and about 10 minutes or less to the journey. HS3 would be better going up through the east midlands via Leicester, Derby/Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds to connect with the HS2. I agreed HS2 should go to Scotland, but to benefit the most people quickly, they should build it via Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds first, as the populations of the North east and Scotland's central belt are relatively small by comparison.
William Davison, Nottingham, UK
I Live in Nottingham but even I can see the HS2 needs to go via Heathrow and Birmingham, then Manchester to Leeds as a priority. Heathrow is the main Air transport hub in the UK it does not make much sense that it is not on a main line. And for "I don't see the West Midlands as a crucial transport centre" what!! its the centre of the motorway network and 2nd largest conurbations in the UK. There only 5 conurbations in UK with over million people and this would cover 4 of them.
Arthur Hood, Hove, UK
We absolutely need the new high speed line, I too think this should run to Scotland. We also need to electrify our existing lines on a rolling basis so that a decade or two from now we have faster more efficient and more reliable trains resulting in greater network capacity. They would do less damage to tracks due to less weight and wouldn't pollute the ground with tons of oil as is now the case, not to mention the carcinogenic exhaust emissions, reliance on oil and costly maintenance schedules. While we're at it how about us designing and building our own trains, to suit UK requirements. For example faster lighter tilting (electric) commuter trains to cope with our twisty routes and our own High Speed 225mph or even 250mph High Speed trains for the new High Speed route(s). Who knows, we might be able to come up with a better faster tilting alternative to the Hitachi intercity replacement and use the change from the ridiculous £7.5Bn cost to pay for the intercity electrification costs.
leslie burge, leicester, england
HS2 should be built all the way into Scotland. And not deviating by Heathrow
as some would like which is ridiculous when you consider that the aim is to
transport people from north to south and vice versa as quickly as possible.
Is this diversion just to make the new terminal more justifiable?
Surely if you want high speed to Heathrow then build it as part of HS3 to
South Wales and the South West.How far forward are we looking?
Izzie, London
I agree it's comical. Why do politicians want Britain to lag behind terms of technology and infrastructure? It's idiotic.
Personally I think it'd be idiotic not to run "HS2" up to Central Scotland. With all due respect, I don't see the West Midlands as a crucial transport centre. It's about time they got realistic.
HH, Birmingham
Of course High Speed lines are expensive but they are still cheaper than widening motorways in the prposed High Speed line corridors.
The capacity of that additional lane on a motorway is even more expensive when considering the actual increase in capacity the lane provides.
The High Speed line deniers should be ignored in the main they usually have specific axes to grind though I notice there are those who suffer from the British 'defeatist disease' dating back to the last century.