Upgrades and ‘do nothing’ just aren’t options, says WSP’s Mark Naysmith.
In the 25 years I have worked in engineering consultancy I have watched the UK’s rail sector evolve. The £8.5bn HS1 Kent to St Pancras line led the way in revitalising rail transport in three key areas – capacity, the green agenda and connectivity. For these reasons, it was strongly backed both politically and by investors. However, as with any project that involves considerable time and money, there was opposition.
HS2 is the next step to continuing on this journey, but it is not simply a rail project and should not be judged as one. HS2 doomsayers have been heavy with their criticisms of the cost but have conveniently forgotten to look at the return on that investment. The development opportunities around new stations alone will be a major catalyst for regional growth.
With KPMG’s report this week indicating that HS2 could be worth £15bn a year to the UK economy, finally we have some acknowledgement of the wider benefits of the scheme, particularly for the regions. I hope the debate will now be more firmly based in the real issues – although good questions have been raised in recent weeks, including by the Public Accounts Committee, HS2 was approved by Cabinet on the basis of rail capacity and this case still stands.
In fact, the rail capacity problem in the UK is critical, not just for passengers but for freight as well. We need better connections between London and the other major hubs, particularly the north and the midlands, especially as our roads continue to clog up and our population grows.
Research WSP undertook earlier this year found HS2 could take 500,000 HGV lorry journeys off the M1, M40 and M6 motorways each year, leading to environmental benefits worth more than £45m a year and saving over 65,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year.
Furthermore, no one has yet to come up with a realistic alternative that can serve the same purpose. Ploughing the money into existing lines has been examined but just isn’t justifiable, billions was already put into a somewhat limited upgrade in the 1990s. Doing nothing is clearly not an option if we want to remain competitive and progressive.
I do, however, agree that HS2 could be better linked to HS1 for domestic high-speed rail services, not just international, which would better serve London.
In the absence of another solution for this matrix of issues there is no doubt in my mind that HS2 will have widespread benefits for the UK. I’m not just saying that as part of an industry that is set to prosper from the project, I say that as the managing director of a geographically diverse company, with a background in transport planning – and as a regular commuter.
Mark Naysmith is managing director of multi-disciplinary consultant WSP in the UK
Comments
Comments are closed.
The railway network capacity problem can be solved without affecting a single home if our existing tracks are upgraded to carry more trains. To do this new technology is required so that trains can brake as efficiently as cars.
Magtrac braking described at http://www.cheshire-innovation.com/Transport%20internet.htm could be the answer we need.
I believe the projected benefits are grossly exaggerated.
Who knows how business will operate in 20 years time, let alone peoples’ travel arrangements.
This money can be better used elsewhere in our economy.
We are apparently to accept Mr Naismith’s view on HS2 as not being in any way influenced through his position ‘as part of an industry that is set to prosper from the project’, but please excuse my scepticism. It is predictable I suppose (now it has been lost) how the argument seems to have swung in the past weeks from reaching Birmingham a few minutes earlier to there being widespread national advantages through HS2. According to the Minister, speaking in East Anglia recently, we were expected to believe that even in the Eastern Counties, where we struggle on with vast under-investment in both track capacity and rolling stock, that we would somehow benefit hugely from this colossal white elephant. It is becoming increasingly obvious that this project has no popular support and represents ‘best parlour planning’ at its very worst. I recently listened at a seminar to the project leader of Crossrail (which I strongly favour incidentally) explaining that an extra 30 trains per hour were to be run along the existing railroutes from the capital to Shenfield in the east without any extra track or platforms at all and all this was to be achieved with ‘smart signalling’ (this was not explained unfortunately). On a route already afflicted by congestion and in particular freight traffic crossing the route in the east London area, to become even worse with traffic to be generated by the London Gateway port, I was not the only one in the audience who was waiting to be amazed. If however ‘smart signalling’ (whatever that is), rather than new track is really the answer to running extra trains I wonder why it is not already being practiced elsewhere on the rail network. It would avoid the need for spending £50 billion in one narrow rail corridor of upheaval, whilst in the meantime the rest of the system is left to fester and deteriorate. Put simply, we need more and better trackwork on existing routes, longer platforms, faster, higher capacity and more comfortable trains (not just 35 year old trains repainted), full electrification of all main routes, a full study for creation of more local cross country and metro routes avoiding the need for travel to the capital or other city hubs to reach destinations. Dare I say, a national Beeching reversal plan appropriate to the 21st century!
I recently saw a marvellous proposal for a German style wide canal running from Scotland to the South East. This could solve many issues- freight, movement of water from wet to dry areas of the country, conduits for major services as well as providing a huge leisure facility and providing a far more environmentally friendly/ sustainable solution to transport requirements and many more jobs. Who really needs half an hour less off a journey from London to Birmingham? HS2 is a politicians’ vanity project benefitting a minority of people subsidised by the majority. Stop playing with your train sets boys- spend OUR money wisely. HS2 is not the answer.
A nice attention grabbing headline, but far too passionate and of course utter nonsense. No other realistic alternatives in comparison with what – other transport investments or are we narrowly considering rail investment only.
This debate needs to be reframed, it is not about a high speed rail project; the broader issue here is concerned with generating GDP growth. Three things in life are certain, death, taxes and there being many other ways to generate £15bn in GDP!