HS2 is a solution in search of a problem

An anti-HS2 cow. Image: Getty.

Escalating costs on a large infrastructure project in the UK is hardly news. But reports that the High Speed 2 rail line (HS2) might now cost up to £106bn, almost double last year’s estimate, is extreme even for this country.

Perhaps we should not be surprised. Industry experts have warned for years that HS2’s costs would overrun, with some forecasting that it could cost between 20 per cent and 60 per cent more than the £56bn sum the last government signed off.

Work on HS2 has hardly started and yet, throughout its 10-year political life, cost projections have more than tripled, from £33.3bn to today’s sum, if the Financial Times’ reports of the government’s review of the scheme are to be believed.

Without seeing the full review, it is hard to make firm assumptions. But when we analysed the economic and strategic case for HS2 at the New Economics Foundation (NEF) last year, we calculated that if the cost of the scheme went up by 60 per cent (which took the total to around £90bn) with no increase in benefits, it would no longer pass the government’s value-for-money tests.

Infrastructure schemes that are not good value for money but are viewed as strategically important, can still be given the political nod from the Treasury – but then the problems they are solving have to be important ones, and the solutions rock solid. In HS2’s case they are not.

Proponents of HS2, including the Department for Transport, will say that it frees up capacity on the existing West Coast Mainline that can be used to relieve overcrowding on trains and line congestion. It will, but it’s not at all clear to what extent it will do this or to what extent this is needed.

One reason for this is that, because of our privatised railways, the data you’d need to draw firm conclusions – about numbers of passengers on specific trains and where and when they board and alight – is owned by train operating companies and not released publicly. To get round this problem during our research, we conducted an informal census of passengers getting off at evening peak time on London to Birmingham trains in Milton Keynes. We found that around two-thirds of passengers leave these trains at Milton Keynes. 

Even if every single passenger that doesn’t alight at Milton Keynes on peak time trains out of Euston is going to Birmingham or beyond, does this relatively modest thinning out of peak time west coast trains really merit spending more than £100bn and building thousands of miles of high-speed line? Probably not, especially given that trains are only overcrowded at peak times, and that similar overcrowding happens on other lines into London and around other big cities, most of which HS2 will do nothing whatsoever to address.


HS2 has also been billed as a project that will help ‘level up’ areas of the UK outside the south-east, bringing much needed jobs and growth to the north and midlands. But London’s inexorable pull and economic might means that starting the line in the capital skews the possibility of this happening. In fact, according to HS2 Ltd’s own economic appraisal – buried in an appendix on page 75 – 40 per cent of the benefits of HS2 will flow to London, compared to 18 per cent to the north-west, 12 per cent in the West Midlands, and 10 per cent to Yorkshire and Humber.

Investment in the UK’s railways – and in its bus network – is very sorely needed. For instance, none of the three critical east-west lines across the Pennines is currently electrified, which is not only essential to make transport low carbon, but also to speed up services and make them more efficient.

There are massive problems almost everywhere on the rail network and big, public-led investment is certainly going to be needed. But taxpayers should demand value for money, which HS2 does not deliver. The best solution would be to share out the investment capital of HS2 between the regions of England, and Wales and Scotland. Governments local and national should spend the money on solving the transport problems that affect the most people, which is generally the daily commute.

HS2 is a product of decision-making that begins and ends in London. It’s no surprise that with this approach we’ve ended up with a railway project that looks like a solution in search of a problem.

Andrew Pendleton is director of policy and advocacy at the New Economics Foundation.

 
 
 
 

To build its emerging “megaregions”, the USA should turn to trains

Under construction: high speed rail in California. Image: Getty.

An extract from “Designing the Megaregion: Meeting Urban Challenges at a New Scale”, out now from Island Press.

A regional transportation system does not become balanced until all its parts are operating effectively. Highways, arterial streets, and local streets are essential, and every megaregion has them, although there is often a big backlog of needed repairs, especially for bridges. Airports for long-distance travel are also recognized as essential, and there are major airports in all the evolving megaregions. Both highways and airports are overloaded at peak periods in the megaregions because of gaps in the rest of the transportation system. Predictions for 2040, when the megaregions will be far more developed than they are today, show that there will be much worse traffic congestion and more airport delays.

What is needed to create a better balance? Passenger rail service that is fast enough to be competitive with driving and with some short airplane trips, commuter rail to major employment centers to take some travelers off highways, and improved local transit systems, especially those that make use of exclusive transit rights-of-way, again to reduce the number of cars on highways and arterial roads. Bicycle paths, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths are also important for reducing car trips in neighborhoods and business centers.

Implementing “fast enough” passenger rail

Long-distance Amtrak trains and commuter rail on conventional, unelectrified tracks are powered by diesel locomotives that can attain a maximum permitted speed of 79 miles per hour, which works out to average operating speeds of 30 to 50 miles per hour. At these speeds, trains are not competitive with driving or even short airline flights.

Trains that can attain 110 miles per hour and can operate at average speeds of 70 miles per hour are fast enough to help balance transportation in megaregions. A trip that takes two to three hours by rail can be competitive with a one-hour flight because of the need to allow an hour and a half or more to get to the boarding area through security, plus the time needed to pick up checked baggage. A two-to-three-hour train trip can be competitive with driving when the distance between destinations is more than two hundred miles – particularly for business travelers who want to sit and work on the train. Of course, the trains also have to be frequent enough, and the traveler’s destination needs to be easily reachable from a train station.

An important factor in reaching higher railway speeds is the recent federal law requiring all trains to have a positive train control safety system, where automated devices manage train separation to avoid collisions, as well as to prevent excessive speeds and deal with track repairs and other temporary situations. What are called high-speed trains in the United States, averaging 70 miles per hour, need gate controls at grade crossings, upgraded tracks, and trains with tilt technology – as on the Acela trains – to permit faster speeds around curves. The Virgin Trains in Florida have diesel-electric locomotives with an electrical generator on board that drives the train but is powered by a diesel engine. 

The faster the train needs to operate, the larger, and heavier, these diesel-electric locomotives have to be, setting an effective speed limit on this technology. The faster speeds possible on the portion of Amtrak’s Acela service north of New Haven, Connecticut, came after the entire line was electrified, as engines that get their power from lines along the track can be smaller and much lighter, and thus go faster. Catenary or third-rail electric trains, like Amtrak’s Acela, can attain speeds of 150 miles per hour, but only a few portions of the tracks now permit this, and average operating speeds are much lower.

Possible alternatives to fast enough trains

True electric high-speed rail can attain maximum operating speeds of 150 to 220 miles per hour, with average operating speeds from 120 to 200 miles per hour. These trains need their own grade-separated track structure, which means new alignments, which are expensive to build. In some places the property-acquisition problem may make a new alignment impossible, unless tunnels are used. True high speeds may be attained by the proposed Texas Central train from Dallas to Houston, and on some portions of the California High-Speed Rail line, should it ever be completed. All of the California line is to be electrified, but some sections will be conventional tracks so that average operating speeds will be lower.


Maglev technology is sometimes mentioned as the ultimate solution to attaining high-speed rail travel. A maglev train travels just above a guideway using magnetic levitation and is propelled by electromagnetic energy. There is an operating maglev train connecting the center of Shanghai to its Pudong International Airport. It can reach a top speed of 267 miles per hour, although its average speed is much lower, as the distance is short and most of the trip is spent getting up to speed or decelerating. The Chinese government has not, so far, used this technology in any other application while building a national system of long-distance, high-speed electric trains. However, there has been a recent announcement of a proposed Chinese maglev train that can attain speeds of 375 miles per hour.

The Hyperloop is a proposed technology that would, in theory, permit passenger trains to travel through large tubes from which all air has been evacuated, and would be even faster than today’s highest-speed trains. Elon Musk has formed a company to develop this virtually frictionless mode of travel, which would have speeds to make it competitive with medium- and even long-distance airplane travel. However, the Hyperloop technology is not yet ready to be applied to real travel situations, and the infrastructure to support it, whether an elevated system or a tunnel, will have all the problems of building conventional high-speed rail on separate guideways, and will also be even more expensive, as a tube has to be constructed as well as the train.

Megaregions need fast enough trains now

Even if new technology someday creates long-distance passenger trains with travel times competitive with airplanes, passenger traffic will still benefit from upgrading rail service to fast-enough trains for many of the trips within a megaregion, now and in the future. States already have the responsibility of financing passenger trains in megaregion rail corridors. Section 209 of the federal Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 requires states to pay 85 percent of operating costs for all Amtrak routes of less than 750 miles (the legislation exempts the Northeast Corridor) as well as capital maintenance costs of the Amtrak equipment they use, plus support costs for such programs as safety and marketing. 

California’s Caltrans and Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, Maine’s Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin all have agreements with Amtrak to operate their state corridor services. Amtrak has agreements with the freight railroads that own the tracks, and by law, its operations have priority over freight trains.

At present it appears that upgrading these corridor services to fast-enough trains will also be primarily the responsibility of the states, although they may be able to receive federal grants and loans. The track improvements being financed by the State of Michigan are an example of the way a state can take control over rail service. These tracks will eventually be part of 110-mile-per-hour service between Chicago and Detroit, with commitments from not just Michigan but also Illinois and Indiana. Fast-enough service between Chicago and Detroit could become a major organizer in an evolving megaregion, with stops at key cities along the way, including Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, and Ann Arbor. 

Cooperation among states for faster train service requires formal agreements, in this case, the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Compact. The participants are Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. There is also an advocacy organization to support the objectives of the compact, the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission.

States could, in future, reach operating agreements with a private company such as Virgin Trains USA, but the private company would have to negotiate its own agreement with the freight railroads, and also negotiate its own dispatching priorities. Virgin Trains says in its prospectus that it can finance track improvements itself. If the Virgin Trains service in Florida proves to be profitable, it could lead to other private investments in fast-enough trains.

Jonathan Barnett is an emeritus Professor of Practice in City and Regional Planning, and former director of the Urban Design Program, at the University of Pennsylvania. 

This is an extract from “Designing the Megaregion: Meeting Urban Challenges at a New Scale”, published now by Island Press. You can find out more here.