Are the Tories planning to cut Crossrail 2? And how can they deliver HS2 without it?

Euston station, the scene of the crime. Image: Getty.

At first sight, the transport section of the Conservative manifesto published yesterday looks rather bland compared to the drama elsewhere.

It pledges to continue “putting some £40bn into transport improvements across the United Kingdom over the rest of this decade” and to “continue our programme of strategic national investments, including High Speed 2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and the expansion of Heathrow Airport”.

The first response to this is relief. There are several ideas that have been floating around the Conservative Party and affiliated think-tanks for a while which would be less than great – from dropping the new Heathrow runway to the cancellation of the HS2 high-speed north-south rail link or George Osborne’s Northern Powerhouse project, via the privatisation of infrastructure operator Network Rail, through to the abolition of all rail subsidies and safety regulations.

Transport is a sector that’s all too likely to experience major reorganisations, funding and scope changes halfway through major projects based on political whims. Given the change in government focus after the Brexit vote, more radical changes to transport policy could have been on the cards.

The manifesto pledges greater government involvement in private-sector areas such as energy and banking, so it’s perhaps not surprising to see Network Rail privatisation disappearing from the picture. A sell-off would go against Theresa May’s desire to appeal to former Labour and UKIP voters as a break from the Cameron government’s City of London establishment.

Indeed, the one major project that does appear to have got the axe is a London one. The Crossrail 2 project, providing a new heavy-rail line between north-east and south-west London – which was included in the 2015 Conservative manifesto – isn’t mentioned at all this time round.

Take a look at what you could have won.

The Department for Transport was scheduled to report on the business case for the program that Transport for London has created by the end of this month, but has now delayed any decision till after the election. So things are looking shaky for the project’s future, despite its strong backing from the Mayor and TfL.

The obvious question is why. Crossrail 2 is one of the highest benefit/cost ratio (BCR) schemes going in the UK, with a BCR of 1:2.7, compared to about 1:1.8 for HS2 and about 1:2 for the Elizabeth Line (Crossrail 1) that’s currently being completed. (The Northern Powerhouse Rail scheme hasn’t even calculated one.)


Partly this is because of the nature of BCRs. Transport investment in London always shows up more productive in BCR terms than transport investment in the rest of the UK, because it’s a bigger, denser city containing more people who earn more money than people anywhere else. It’s also the only place in the country where all transport networks continuously run at or above capacity.

As a result, it’s easy to show how capacity enhancement projects will have benefits, because you can see exactly who will use them and what they’ll use them for. Regeneration and massive change projects require much more of a wing and a prayer outlook – and while “If you build it, they will come” may have worked for Kevin Costner, it’s hard to factor into economic appraisals.

So if the government wants to move away from its predecessor’s focus on London, it pretty much has to neglect high BCR London projects in favour of lower or incalculable BCR projects elsewhere – and accept the economic hit that will ensue if this means further crowding on the capital’s commuter lines.

There’s one problem with this for Crossrail 2, though. The current plans for HS2 – which have gone through parliament and detailed design, and are almost ready to start – rely on the new commuter line. The terminus for HS2 will be at Euston, which is on the north side of central London. It’s an hour’s walk from Euston to Westminster or to London Bridge, and the three tube lines connecting Euston directly with everywhere southwards are already well over capacity.

The biggest economic case for HS2, national showing-off aside, is that commuter routes to the north of London are saturated. Moving high-speed trains to a new line allows more commuter trains to run on existing lines – both by swapping them, and by improving the line’s capacity. (When all trains on a track go at the same speed, there’s room for more trains than there is if fast ones keep catching up with slow ones.) This increases the number of people who can be moved from northern suburbia into London.

But without Crossrail 2, everyone who arrives into Euston will then find it hard to get anywhere else. The commuters who HS2 has made room for will be using up the last vestiges of space on the Victoria Line; and the time benefits of the new line will seem irrelevant when you have to queue for just as long before you can get on the Tube.

Is this an unintended consequence that the Conservatives haven’t thought through? Is it an excuse to cancel HS2 after the election? Is the apparent disappearance of Crossrail 2 actually just a total red herring, or even an attempt to play hardball with TfL over funding splits? We’ll see – but the plans as they appear now just don’t seem to make sense.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

A voice for the city: how should mayors respond to terror attacks?

Andy Burnham speaking in Manchester yesterday. Image: Getty.

When Andy Burnham, a former British government minister, won the election to be Greater Manchester’s Metro Mayor recently he was probably focused on plans for the region’s transport, policing and housing – and, of course, all the behind the scenes political work that goes on when a new role is created. The Conversation

And yet just a few weeks after taking on the role, terrorism has proved to be his first major challenge. Following the horrific bomb attack following a concert at one of Manchester’s most popular venues, he quickly has had to rise to the challenge.

It is a sad fact of life that as a senior politician, you will soon have to face – and deal with – a shocking incident of this kind.

These incidents arrive regardless of your long term plans and whatever you are doing. Gordon Brown’s early tenure as UK prime minister, for example, saw the Glasgow terror incident – which involved an attempted car bombing of the city’s airport in June 2007. Just four days into his premiership, Brown was dealing with the worst terrorist incident in Britain since the attacks on London in July 2005. Andy Burnham now finds himself in a similar situation.


Giving Manchester a voice

For Burnham, as the mayor and messenger of Manchester, an attack of this scale needs a response at several levels.

There is the immediately practical – dealing with casualties. There is the short term logistical – dealing with things like transport and closures. And there is the investigation and (hopefully) prevention of any follow ups.

But he will also need a “voice”. People look to particular figures to give a voice to their outrage, to talk about the need for calm, to provide reassurance, and to offer unity and express the sadness overwhelming many.

Part of the thinking behind the UK government’s enthusiasm for elected mayors was a perceived need to provide strong, local leaders. And a strong, local leader’s voice is exactly what is needed in Manchester now.

There is a certain choreography to the response to these events. It tends to go: a brief initial reaction, a visit to the scene, then a longer statement or speech. This is then usually followed by a press conference and interviews, along with visits to those affected. I say this not to be callous, but to highlight the huge demand the news media places on leading political figures when tragedy strikes.

‘We are strong’

As expected, Burnham made a speech on the morning after the attack. It is probably better described as a statement, in that it was short and to the point. But despite its brevity, in nine paragraphs, he summed up just about every possible line of thought.

The speech covered evil, the shared grieving and the need for the city to carry on. He also praised the work of the emergency services, and highlighted the need for unity and the very human reaction of the local people who provided help to those affected.

Andy Burnham on Sky News. Image: screenshot.

Burnham now has the task of bringing people together while there is still doubt about many aspects of what happened. A vigil in the centre of Manchester was rapidly planned for Tuesday evening, and there will be many other potential initiatives to follow.

Incidents like this tend to leave a large and long-lasting footprint. The effects of the bomb will last for years, whether in concrete reality or in people’s awareness and memories. And Burnham must now lead the effort to ensure Manchester emerges from this shocking incident with cohesion and strength.

Paula Keaveney is senior lecturer in public relations & politics at Edge Hill University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.