When people defend HS2 two things are certain: there will be a generous helping of hyperbole in its support and few if any hard figures. This is understandable for a project that was the child of political hubris, a grand projet meant to mollify a north supposedly chafing at its lack of a high-speed rail link to London.
When HS2 was born it was all about speed, the mystical benefits of arriving 30 minutes earlier. And when that case began to look shakey its raison d’être was changed to capacity. If those supposedly in charge of a transport project of such vast scope and cost cannot identify its true purpose at the outset it is probably heading for the buffers. So it has proved.
This is clearly not the fault of the prime minister. Rishi Sunak is merely picking through the wreckage of a collision between years of shallow political grandstanding and reality. HS2 has become a Frankenstein’s monster. Despite HS2 Ltd’s claims that it has learnt from previous cost overruns the truth is that taking the line to Manchester would probably cost £100 billion, and quite plausibly £120 billion — triple its original price tag. Even getting HS2 from Birmingham to Old Oak Common in north London is expected to cost £50 billion, busting its £44.6 billion contingency ceiling. This is a project still careering out of control.
Yet for Mr Sunak to question these monstrous costs in a time of severely-strained public finances is to invite opprobrium. In an article for this newspaper George Osborne, the former chancellor and one of HS2’s principal advocates, and Lord Heseltine describe curtailing HS2 as an act of “economic self harm”. Boris Johnson calls it “desperate”. And there are plenty of local politicians in the Midlands and north queueing up to cry betrayal.
A few hard facts, never in abundant supply from the pro-HS2 camp, are worth noting. David Cameron and Mr Osborne sowed the seeds of this disaster when they approved a 400km/h line, in contrast to the 300km/h lines in Europe. In a country as compact as Britain 400km/h is completely unnecessary but it is fiendishly expensive due to the need for super-level track. To this absurd gold-plating was added a desk-top analysis that ignored the reality of driving a new line through one of the most densely-populated places in Europe.
Expensive measures taken to ameliorate the impact of the line on the rural southeast were a result. Then there were the agreements signed by HS2 Ltd with its main contractors, which were the business equivalent of giving a teenager the family credit card. The management of HS2 Ltd, led by Mark Thurston, who until his imminent retirement is Britain’s highest-paid public servant, simply lost control of these companies’ demands.
Mr Sunak is now faced with hard choices but they do not have to be all or nothing. The London-Birmingham leg is too advanced to cancel. And there would be benefits: Birmingham’s airport and cheaper housing would be 40 minutes from Old Oak Common, which is connected to the fast and high-capacity Elizabeth Line. HS2 trains would still run from Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow on existing track before joining HS2 outside Birmingham. Manchester to London would be cut from 2 hours to 1 hour, 32 minutes.
Labour will try to wound Mr Sunak on this issue but is being careful not to commit itself to the £50 billion completion cost. Despite the wails of northern politicians and quangocrats the public is unmoved. In a Yougov poll in May only 8 per cent of people strongly supported HS2 while 20 per cent strongly opposed it. But if Mr Sunak truncates HS2 he must have a solid transport offer for the north. Not a ridiculous HS3 through the Pennines — the upgraded existing route will be good enough — but substantial upgrades to local transport. He must ignore the hyperbole and make a rational decision on HS2. If he does so it will be a welcome change after a decade of fantasy.
