HS2: Good case for high-speed rail link, say MPs

There is a "good case" for the government's HS2 high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham and beyond, a committee of MPs has said.

The £32bn scheme offers "a new era of inter-urban travel in Britain", the Commons Transport Committee says.

But its report says the route must be extended to Leeds and Manchester.

Opponents said the report left HS2 "in tatters" because MPs said they could not be sure it would bring the economic benefits ministers predict.

The committee's support for the rail link, which aims to cut the London to Birmingham journey time to 49 minutes, came with a number of provisos.

The committee demanded that ministers "firmly commit" to extending the high speed link to both Leeds and Manchester before seeking Parliamentary approval for the London to Birmingham route.

The MPs also said what should have been a serious and factually-based debate had "too often been reduced to name-calling and caricature", and they demanded the government "desist from disparaging opponents of HS2 as nimbys".

See maps of the route at the DfT website

They warned the government it would be "unacceptable and counterproductive" if investment in high speed rail led to cutbacks in rail investment elsewhere.

The Labour chair of the committee, Louise Ellman, said the scheme was affordable and would provide a "step change" in the quality and frequency of rail services between major cities.

"A high-speed line offers potential economic and strategic benefits which a conventional line does not," she said.

There is something for all sides of the HS2 debate in this report.

The government welcomes the committee's support for the high speed rail concept, while critics suggest the report's many criticisms of the way the project has been presented thus far completely undermine the arguments for it.

Certainly, the committee concludes that there is a "good case" for going ahead with it, but goes on to suggest at some length that successive governments haven't quite made it yet; the economic benefits aren't completely clear, the carbon reduction benefits "don't stand up to scrutiny" while the impact on communities along the route is "substantial".

The committee does not quite demand that the government goes back to the drawing board, but it comes close at times, suggesting perhaps a slower service along existing transport corridors and a re-assessment of the route, the impact and the benefits of HS2.

"[It would mean] a dramatic improvement in connectivity between our major cities, Heathrow and other airports, and the rest of Europe.

"High-speed rail may be a catalyst for economic growth, helping to rebalance the economy and bridge the north-south divide.

"But the government must do more to promote local and regional growth strategies to ensure we get maximum economic benefit from high-speed rail."

The plans have strongly divided opinion along the 120-mile route between London and Birmingham, with supporters launching a "Their Lawns or Our Jobs" poster campaign, and opponents touring the country with a 10ft inflatable white elephant.

The MPs accept that the proposed route is likely to have "substantial impacts" on those living along it, adding that it is "unfortunate" that it crosses the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty.

They suggest that noise impact "may be less than feared" but urge ministers to try to build the new line close to other existing transport routes if possible.

Claims by ministers that HS2 will reduce CO2 omissions "do not stand up to scrutiny" - but the route will produce less carbon than an expanded motorway network or greater domestic aviation in the event of increased demand for inter-urban travel.

The MPs also say that a case for routing HS2 via Heathrow had not been set out clearly.

Jerry Marshall, chair of Action Groups Against High Speed Two (Aghast), said: "Given the partisan composition of the committee, we welcome the significant number of issues that its report has raised around the fatal flaws in HS2's business case.

Every time he leaves his official country retreat of Chequers, the prime minister is met by an anti-HS2 poster campaign directed personally at him.

Along the road between the Chiltern villages of Great Missenden and Amersham, big billboards urge him to drop plans to build a high-speed railway line through this designated area of outstanding natural beauty.

"Pssst Dave," one matey message reads. "Are you sure you're on the right track?" Another asks: "Could it derail you?" In nearby Tory-blue villages, houses along quaint and quiet country lanes are lined with posters opposing the rail link.

Many locals feel so strongly about what they see as a major threat to their tranquil way of life that they are quite prepared to withhold their Conservative votes in future elections.

"These are that viable alternatives to HS2 have not been investigated thoroughly, that the value of potential productivity gains delivered by HS2 have been greatly inflated and, lastly, the technical feasibility of being able to run 18 trains per hour is a risk. This simply leaves the case for HS2 in tatters."

The Association of Train Operating Companies and the Campaign for Better Transport said the high-speed rail link was vital, but it should not come at the expense of investment in the rest of the rail network.

The Countryside Alliance welcomed the committee's emphasis on the environmental impact of HS2.

"We hope that this recommendation extinguishes, once and for all, any charges of nimbyism directed at people who wish to see our most-cherished landscape preserved for future generations," said Alice Barnard, chief executive of the group.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England said the government needed to ensure HS2 was accompanied by wider planning to maximise the long-term benefits for the environment and economy.