High Speed 2: Line viability draws scrutiny

A furious debate is raging in the UK about government plans for a 530km-long line that would link London to Manchester and Leeds in the north of England.

The country currently boasts just one high-speed line – the 109km link between London and the Channel tunnel, that links the UK capital to Paris and Brussels.

Although the new project, High Speed 2, enjoys the support of the UK’s main political parties, there are plenty of detractors. These range from disgruntled property owners who will be affected by the proposed route to economists who question whether the funds could be better spent in other ways.

At a time of austerity, the headline cost of HS2 – running at about £34bn before the cost of the rolling stock is factored in – might look hard to justify. The government insists the benefits would apply to the country as a whole, not just the six cities that will get high-speed rail stations linking them to London.

The line, which could eventually see trains running at up to 250mph, will cut some journey times between London and the north by half.

It will provide much-needed extra rail capacity, with the country’s busiest north-south line, the West Coast mainline that runs between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow, due to be full by the mid-2020s.

HS2 is scheduled to be fully operational in 2033, seven years after the first phase between London and Birmingham is scheduled to open.

The government plans to put legislation in place by the end of the year that would allow detailed planning and preparation work for the first phase of the line to begin, with a view to starting construction in 2017.

The project is under constant scrutiny and has already survived a legal challenge by opponents. The legal battles could continue for years, depending on the outcome of an appeal that is due to be heard in June.

The latest setback came this month when the first detailed analysis of the project by the National Audit Office, the state spending watchdog, found there was “little” evidence to support the government’s claim that the line would bring more growth to the regions.

The findings undermined comments by David Cameron, the UK prime minister, who said this year that no amount of opposition would turn him against the project because it “would spread wealth and prosperity” across the country.

The NAO found that much of the data on which many of the main assumptions were based were out of date. Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, says the main concern is the “lack of clarity” around the strategic case for the line.

The findings were rejected by the government, with ministers and officials accusing the watchdog of ignoring progress in the past 12 months that has seen the government unveil its plans for the full route between London, Manchester and Leeds.

Patrick McLoughlin, the UK’s transport secretary, rejects the focus on economic modelling and says big infrastructure projects do not always stand up to that kind of scrutiny.

“We are not building HS2 simply because the computer says ‘yes’,” he says.

“We are building it because it is the right thing to do to make Britain a stronger and more prosperous place.”