Latest Comment
High-speed rail: an unnecessary investment?
Last week the Transport Secretary, Justine Greening, approved the £32.7 billion investment in a high-speed rail network between London and Birmingham. The ‘HS2’ scheme proposes to transform Birmingham’s economy by increasing the number of commuters visiting Britain’s second largest city, hopefully leading to what Greening describes as a “railway revolution”.
Passengers traveling to and from London and Birmingham will be able to travel at speeds of up to 250mph, reaching their destination in just 49 minutes (currently the journey takes 1 hour and 24 minutes). Such a large investment of taxpayers’ money is bound to cause ripples of controversy; environmentalist groups, opposing politicians and even some businesses are skeptical about the supposed benefits of the High Speed rail network and the costs that will inevitably arise from its development.
In this time of financial austerity, many are questioning whether such a large investment in a specifically targeted area should be a priority for the British public, who have been crying out for further investment in the national rail industry for years, whereby services are frequently underdeveloped and overcrowded (especially in the South East). Wealthy businessmen who regularly commute from Birmingham to London will certainly benefit from the HS2 scheme, but the fact still remains that the majority of us would rather see amendments made to the London Underground and our local rail services in order to create a more efficient and more affordable public transport system for everybody.
Environmentalist groups such as ‘Friends of the Earth’ have condemned the proposals in the Birmingham Mail, arguing that “pumping £32 billion into high-speed travel for the wealthy few while the rest of us suffer” is not the answer to our current economic problems, and that ‘Ministers should prioritise spending on improving local train and bus services instead.’ In light of the fact that rail fares have risen by 5.9% this year, many of us would surely agree. Which begs the question: will people really be willing to pay the extra cost for a High Speed ticket, on top of this increase in pricing? In Holland’s experience, the answer is no. After creating a similar high-speed rail network, taxpayers were forced to subsidise the scheme as passengers were unwilling to pay the extra money for the convenience.
The concept behind the development of the network is that it will boost our economy, and unfortunately, improving our current rail services probably wouldn’t reap in £5.3 billion in economic benefits to the Midlands region (which is one of the predicted benefits of the scheme), or create up to 70,000 jobs by 2040. The central priorities of the current government are to lessen the deficit and reduce unemployment and this scheme just happens to tick all of those boxes in the long-term. Unfortunately, the average taxpayer probably won’t gain a great deal from the scheme, but it will improve rail connections across the country, especially when the lines are extended to both Leeds and Manchester.
Yet, as the communications technology industry evolves, it is also questionable whether there will be an influx of commuters (especially with regard to business representatives) to and from Birmingham when the line is completed. Video conferencing is already a popular means of linking businesses and without the need for lengthy travel and unnecessary expenditure it isn’t difficult to imagine which method will be more attractive to corporations in the future.
The need for railway lines will always continue, especially with the increasing price of fuel, but the government may be over-estimating the benefits of the scheme in comparison to the costs. They must toe a very careful line in order to ensure that the taxpayer doesn’t end up forking out billions of pounds merely to fund an unnecessary and costly service.