Soak the taxpayer? Ongoing subsidy required for HS2 – European precedents suggest £2billion

PCU: As some members of the public have suggested, if the business case for HS2 is so compelling, let business fund its construction and the whole operation.

In July PCU published an article and associated report by Andrew Bodman, on behalf of the South Northants Action Group, identifying ten projects which collectively have wasted more than £30bn.

On August 22nd the following message cited the findings of the government’s Public Accounts Committee investigation into HS1 (below)

It would appear from the experiences of several other countries that HS2, if it is built, will add to the ongoing subsidy required for railways in the UK. High Speed Two (HS2) if built will involve the expenditure of £33bn for its construction (London to Manchester and Leeds) plus several more billion for the trains. Is this sensible for a country as indebted as the UK? There are alternatives to HS2.

World Bank: copious and continuing budget support for the debt

What has been overlooked is that high speed rail involves a subsidy to keep its trains running once the lines have been built. In July 2010 a World Bank report cautioned that governments planning high-speed rail systems: “. . .should also contemplate the near-certainty of copious and continuing budget support for the debt”.

The National Audit Office estimated that the total cost to taxpayers of supporting High Speed 1 (in Kent) could be £10.2 billion over a 60 year period. HS2 is considerably longer than HS1 and will cost several times more to build.

Does it make sense for the Government to commit to not only an initial outlay in the order of £40 bn but an ongoing subsidy to run it? The subsidy could amount to £2 bn per year based on the experience of some European countries.

The Optimised Alternative

51M, a group of 18 councils which are opposed to HS2, advocates significantly cheaper alternatives which can be made available much sooner on a progressive basis. These measures would consist of lengthening existing trains to 12 carriages, changing one first class carriage per train to standard class and relieving a handful of track pinch points. This solution is known as the Optimised Alternative and more details may be found on their website: http://www.51m.co.uk/.

Further information:
Advertisements

Posted on September 8, 2012, in Government and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. Received by email:

    Very interesting. Thank God for 51m and their rational thinking.

    This ‘high speed’ view on life has nothing to recommend it.

    Government is completely in the pockets of transport lobby groups: it used to be roads – but now fast rail is getting its turn to waste untold billions of non existent tax payers funds.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: