HS2 High-Speed Rail Proposal: Costs, Benefits & Environment

Executive Summary

The development of public and mass transit is an issue confronting nearly every nation as well as many individual municipalities. The UK is no exception, and there are currently many proposals on the docket that attempt to resolve mass transit for distance and commute in ways that are rapid and more environmentally sustainable than individual automobile transportation. One of those proposals is HS2, a high-speed rail network that would connect many locations, provide rapid service, address environmental concerns, and come at a relatively high cost to individual taxpayers and to central and local governments. This high cost is often seen as an extreme barrier to developing large infrastructural transportation projects.

This work explores the HS2 proposal and offers both affirmative and contrary evidence to support or detract from the project. It argues that, though the environmental offset cost savings are difficult to calculate, they make the expenditure proposed in HS2 a valid one. It further argues that one of the most important aspects of developing infrastructural changes for mass transportation projects is serious consideration of intangible and secondary costs and benefits with regard to the environment.

Transportation is one of the most important aspects of civic and economic planning. Public and mass transit are issues confronting nearly every nation as well as many individual municipalities. The UK is no exception, and there are currently many proposals on the docket that attempt to resolve mass transit for distance and commute in ways that are rapid and more environmentally sustainable than individual automobile transportation.

One of those transportation proposals is HS2, a high-speed train network that would connect many locations, provide rapid service, address issues of environmental concern, and come at a relatively high cost to individual taxpayers and to central and local governments. This high cost is often seen as an extreme barrier to developing large infrastructural transportation projects. This work explores the HS2 proposal and offers both affirmative and contrary evidence to support or detract from the project.

Introduction

The proposed HS2 locations include a line from London to the West Midlands. As described by the Department for Transport:

"Such a line would enable faster and enhanced services to be run on new and existing lines to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and other destinations in the north of England and Scotland, cutting journey times and increasing capacity substantially. In the South, any new line could connect to a new Heathrow International interchange station on the Great Western main line, providing a direct 4-way interchange between the airport, the new north-south line, existing Great Western rail services and Crossrail into central London." (Department of Transport, London, 2009, p. 4)

This work argues that, though environmental offset cost savings are difficult to calculate precisely, they make the expenditure proposed in HS2 a valid one. As one assessment notes, HS2 has not yet issued the full technical details of the emissions it estimates will be caused during construction and operation. Projections vary considerably: HS2's own plans suggest that the project will either increase emissions by 26.5 million tonnes of CO2 or decrease them by 25 million tonnes (Bluespace Thinking Ltd., 2010, Section 10). This wide range of uncertainty itself underscores the importance of treating secondary and intangible environmental costs and benefits as central — rather than peripheral — considerations in infrastructure planning.

The London UK Department for Transport (DfT) (2009) stresses that rail travel and rail freight demand have improved significantly over the last 20 years — by 50% and 40% respectively — and that this increased passenger and freight demand requires better and faster train services. The DfT further emphasizes that large transportation and rail infrastructure projects require significant lead time, and that regardless of concerns regarding cost, the program for developing new lines should proceed using the existing proposed locations.

The background offered by the DfT and other sources stresses that HS2 would be in high demand and would serve areas not currently served by rapid long-distance transportation. Though this affirmation does not come without controversy — as several community action organizations have openly opposed the HS2 plan — it is clear that any major expenditure on infrastructure will inevitably generate debate.

The debate over the particular rail line locations appears to be at the root of the controversy, as some argue that certain parts of the new line proposed in HS2 are redundant and will cause harm rather than benefit the nation. Savin and Wendover Technology (2010, pp. 2–39) argue that the benefits-to-cost ratio provided by the DfT and HS2 Ltd. overestimates new ridership and therefore skews the benefit-cost ratio, and that certain areas of the proposed HS2 line — namely Chiltern routes — are redundant and would cause environmental and land-use harm.

Background

Bluespace Thinking Ltd. argues that HS2 will create greater CO2 emissions than expected and questions the economic benefits offered by the DfT (2010). Greengauge21 argues that existing rail lines need to be analyzed to determine their purpose and use after HS2 construction is complete (2011). Finally, BetterthanHS2 contends that land use issues will be crucial on both a social and economic level and have not been adequately addressed in the official reports (Betterthanhs2.org, 2011).

Yet all of this speculation and debate is addressed by HS2 Ltd. and the DfT in several documents containing substantial statistical data, including analyses of the benefit-cost ratio, ridership projections, the increased demand for rapid long-distance travel, and the many potential social and physical benefits of the HS2 lines (DfT, 2009, 2011, 2011). From the collection of documents reviewed for this work, the DfT and HS2 Ltd. are clearly the most thorough and produce the most foundational infrastructural analysis. They appear to be planning for the HS2 line in a manner that considers both primary and secondary costs and benefits.

The DfT and HS2 Ltd. are held to a high standard that stresses accountability and transparency in ways that other organizations are simply not required to match. While each detractor provides compelling and important considerations, the HS2 project is clearly one that should continue to move forward.