The Department for Transport has said it was “confident” the argument for HS2 plans to connect London to the North was “clear and robust”, rebutting earlier criticism from the House of Lords.The House of Lords Economic Affairs committee said in March 2015 that supporters of the high-speed railway line had failed to make the economic case for the project. Peers suggested cheaper options for easing congestion on the railways should be explored. It added that the argument that the HS2 project would rebalance the economy was not credible, since the main beneficiary was likely to be London – as opposed to the Midlands or the North. The committee’s chairman, Lord Hollick, said: “The government is basing the justification for HS2 on two factors – increased rail capacity and rebalancing the UK economy. We have not seen the evidence that it is the best way to deliver either.” The Department for Transport has disputed this – responding to the cross-party review of the project, saying that HS2 “will have a transformational effect, supporting growth and increased productivity across the country, particularly in the North”. The proposal also formed a key part of the plans to create a Northern Powerhouse, it said. Read more on transport:
- Should the rail industry be renationalised?
- The young female achiever changing the face of transport and engineering
- How can your business benefit from the HS2 rail project?
Transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin placed the blame on Network Rail, revealing that the chairman, Richard Parry-Jones, was stepping down, while its executive directors were to have their annual bonuses held back. The plans for HS2 meanwhile, are for it to run from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, with work predicted to start in 2017. Scepticism remains over its estimated cost and proposed economic benefits. The government claimed it has considered other options thoroughly – highlighting reports it had published from consultants on the issue. It added that upgrading the existing line would be “extremely disruptive” and would provide “limited returns”. The formal response to the committee’s report also held firm on the belief that capacity is constrained. It said “demand for rail travel has grown consistently over the last two decades”, and that the capacity problem stems from “the combination of markets that the existing railways are serving – intercity, commuting and freight”. Image: Shutterstock By Rebecca Smith
Share this story