top of page

THE SHOW

Listen to the show:

https://soundcloud.com/anna-moore-552708879/hs2-recording

​

Transcript

​

Presenter:

Welcome back to Starting the Week. Today we are going to discuss the £60 billion government infrastructure project, HS2, and specifically whether this project is going to close the socio-economic North-South divide, which is said to be the main objective of the project.

The first phase of the High Speed Rail 2 line will link London to the West Midlands. Trains will start running between London and Birmingham in 2026, cutting journey times from one hour 21 minutes to just 49 minutes. However, the project is highly controversial. The Government and other supporters of HS2 say it will help the Northern economy by attracting more companies to invest in the North, however, opposition to HS2 argue the benefits will mostly flow to London.

Don’t forget that you can send us your questions and thoughts on the topic throughout the show using our Twitter page @StartingTheWeek

 

Today I am joined by

 

Baroness Margaret Whittington-Ashworth, who has previously worked for the Rt Hon. Sir Eric Pickles MP when he was Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (also Ministerial Champion for the Midlands Engine). She is now deputy to Chris Greyling MP, Minister for Transport. Baroness Whittington-Ashworth is strongly supporting the government's HS2 plans.

 

We also have

 

The MP of Aylesbury, Daviana Lidington, a British Conservative Party politician, who has been the Member of Parliament for Aylesbury since 1992 and the Leader of the House of Commons since July 2016. Previously, she was Minister of State for Europe from May 2010 to July 2016, the longest-serving Minister for Europe in British history. She will be offering her views on the project as MP for Aylesbury.

 

Our third guest is

 

Professor Jean-Pierre Lambert, who is a distinguished professor emeritus of urban planning at Université Paris-Sorbonne, and an expert on transportation policy and planning and economic development, personal advisor of the French Secretary of State for Transport, the Sea and Fisheries from 2014. He has created and supported well-functioning and cost-effective rail projects across France, but is more skeptical about how HS2 has been designed and how it can be efficiently implemented.

 

And last, but certainly not least

 

Rose Morrison, who is a lawyer and activist. She is currently the chair of the campaign opposing HS2. Morrison has organised many HS2 protests and has appeared in the media numerous times to speak out against the project.

 

Our guests will now answer some of the questions you’ve submitted.

Our first question today comes from Sarah in Coventry

Do you think the current rail network should be improved before investing in new lines?

 

 

Presenter: So, Margaret let’s start with you...

​

Baroness Margaret Whittington-Ashworth: Well, I would like to draw the audience’s attention to the West Coast Mainline scheme which was put forward about a decade ago. The proposal was going to cost over £13 billion for improving the line between London and Scotland, and included new 125mph tilting trains for the benefit of cutting journeying times between London and Scotland – but for the very long 393-mile long route it would only journeying times by 25 minutes. In comparison, building a brand-new and shorter line for HS2 will be a far more efficient investment of our resources, and will benefit the whole of the country. It will double the number of seats between London and Birmingham and generate a faster, and more reliable service to London, cutting journey times by around half an hour on a line which is a quarter the size of the planned West Coast Mainline.

 

Presenter: Thank you. Daviana, what do you think?

 

Daviana Lidington: I completely disagree, the current network needs to be improved before we invest in something like HS2. Tim Hartford, an accredited economist explains that if we look at history, we can see that it doesn’t support HS2’s regeneration claims; we will in fact see agglomeration, and if HS2’s main aim really is to bridge the North-South divide, then it is far more efficient to improve the linkage between Northern cities, rather than connecting the North to London. The benefits of improving other lines instead are far more robust, they don’t rely on exaggerating the value of journey time savings, they don’t involve disruption of existing rail network, they would address the commuter overcrowding issue faster and more efficiently. In response to Margret’s belief that HS2 will be value for money, I believe that there is a much more cost effective alternative. The optimised alternative requires very limited work on existing rail infrastructure, it’s simply longer trains, a first-class car reconfigured to be standard class. This is going to provide the needed capacity at 10% of the cost of HS2, and is valued at 3 times better value for money, giving £5.20 per £1 of public money invested. These alternative options did not receive the appropriate assessment, only HS2 has received serious consideration. The priority should be investing in regional transport links between cities outside London, as this is more likely to generate growth in the North.

 

Rose Morrison: I completely agree.

 

Baroness Margaret Whittington-Ashworth: Well, I am sorry to say that while you do put forward a good argument Daviana, and the cost-benefit analysis does look promising it has been found by the Department for Transport that whilst train lengthening could potentially be effective mitigation for future crowding issues on West Coast Mainline services, it would not address route capacity issues, or improve wider network connectivity.

​

Presenter: Professor, given your experience as a foreign expert, what is your view?

 

Professor Jean-Pierre Lambert:The current rail network is of fundamental importance for a successful HSR project. Just as a bricklayer cannot build the roof of a house without first building the foundation of a house, so too a good rail infrastructure project cannot be implemented without a pre-existing and well-functioning rail network. One important characteristic of the French Train à Grande Vitesse is that it operates on conventional tracks, which allows the TGV to use the conventional lines as it enters and leaves the city centre, leading to significant cost savings. This also means that HST can serve parts of the network where at present the demand is not high enough to justify the construction of a dedicated line. Finally, let me allow to say it is important to consider the airports and the motorway network as well, which play a major role in the local transportation and development schemes. However, this is something the UK project completely ignores and that’s one reason why I am entirely persuaded of the fact that High Speed 2 will die a quiet death. Indeed, if time will prove me wrong and the line is ever built, I will book a ticket on the first train out of Euston and eat my hat in the dining car.

​

Rose Morrison: As much as I’d like to see that, Professor, sadly, I might not be able to afford said ticket, seeing that the prices on normal, less luxurious trains are already extortionate in the UK. To answer the question… Well, the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords published a report in 2015, which was actually 130 pages long, saying that they were not convinced that there was enough evidence and a good enough reason to build HS2. 130 pages, think about that. The chair of the committee, Lord Hollick said that he believed that the government has not looked into alternative, more cost-efficient options.

So let’s talk about some of those options - the cheapest one /is/ increasing the capacity of the existing West Coast line by around 3,000 seats, and at a fraction of the cost of HS2, which Daviana has just suggested. And the Lords actually questioned whether we need those seats in the first place, because even at peak times, the trains are only 50-60% full when they leave Euston. And in fact, in the past it’s not the case of technology following the demand, but the demand only increasing when the technology becomes available. So the question we should be asking ourselves is should we be blindly catering to increasing demands or even encouraging them, or attempt to regulate it instead? Is that sustainable?

​

Baroness Margaret Whittington-Ashworth: Blindly catering?! One of our Ministry of Transport papers showed that passengers coming into and out of Birmingham have to stand on approximately 60 per cent of services, and 13 per cent of these services breach capacity levels. Furthermore, we are building HS2 for the future - when the line is built it will soon act as an economic beacon attracting new businesses parks, industries and housing developments. With a growing UK population, the retirement age being pushed ever higher, and the rising popularity of public transport for environmental reasons, I find it strange that you would think that there is nor will be a huge demand for increased capacity on the West Coast Mainline.

​

Rose Morrison: Have you travelled on a train recently Baroness? The project does not take into account that other technology is moving forward, and more and more people actually work from home and do not have to travel great distances to get to work. I’m one of those people. But it is something which we should really consider - think about how many more people work from home right now than did 10 years ago. So if this line is meant to be up and running around 2030, then we can’t even imagine what work life will look like then. The Eddington report already showed that we predict to see much less congestion out there. Not just due to less people travelling to work. So, again, do we need the HS2 now? Wouldn’t it be better to invest in something else?

​

Presenter: Thank you very much, Rose, we actually have a very relevant question from James in Tamworth on this topic.

The government is spending £50+ billion on HS2 - an ‘expensive toy’ - , at a time when Article 50 is being triggered and the NHS is at breaking point. Is that not a large gamble?

 

Presenter: Let’s start with Professor Lambert.

 

Professor Jean-Pierre Lambert: An expensive “toy”! I totally agree with this statement. How can I be so sure of the failure of the HS2 project, even in a nation of train-lovers? Exactly because this toy is expensive, too expensive. The projected costs of the project are now so ridiculous that it cannot possibly go ahead. Even before the MP George Osborne added another £8 billion to the estimated cost of HS2, the project had a feeble and a deeply flawed benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.4:1.

Furthermore, a suppressed Department for Transport report, recently disclosed in a freedom of information report, made clear that most of the supposed benefits of HS2 are based on the false assumption that businessmen do not use their time sitting on trains productively. But, with the new costings even the flawed benefit-cost ratio falls to just above one. The level at which the cost to the public purse equals the forecast benefit to the economy. And that is assuming that you believe the new costings. Many do not. The Institute for Economic Affairs published an analysis which, including all the related projects required to make HS2 function, such as another Crossrail from Euston, brings the project to close to £80 billion. The record of HS1 (the Eurostar line through Kent) does not bode well; in 1985, when first proposed by British Rail, it was costed at £1 billion at current prices. It eventually cost £11 billion.

​

Rose Morrison: I absolutely agree with Professor Lambert. To me, there is no other purpose to HS2 other than being able to say that we have now built a fancy train, that’s what it ultimately is. And the worst part is that the public absolutely do not support this project, which has been shown in many polls over the years, as well as the support the HS2 opposition groups have been shown. Even back in 2010, as part of a government initiative in regards to cutting back spending, where people were able to email their opinions about what money should be invested in, many of them had serious concerns about HS2 and were worried that it would mostly benefit wealthy businessmen. I absolutely understand their concerns. More recently, a 2014 poll by the Sunday Times showed that only 24% of people were in favour of the project, while 54% opposed it. 54%, you know, 50% seems to be enough of a reason to do other important things and decide our future, so why shouldn’t it also affect this massive project?  

And I see the Baroness opening her mouth to say that those are old statistics and opinions change, but to that I say, that another poll by ITV, which was conducted in November last year, so it’s pretty recent, only 15% of the public agreed with the statement that HS2 would be worth the roughly £56 billion it’ll cost, or at least we think it’s going to cost. Brexit is already going to cost us a lot so why spend money, so much money, on a project which won’t be delivered for another 10 years and people are opposing it, while we have nearly 50% of hospitals declaring an emergency due to underfunding and lack of beds? Funding is being cut from schools, benefits are being cut from disabled people... Surely public health and education should be a priority to our government. There are so many other departments, which could use that money, that £56 billion to solve issues, which are more serious and more urgent.

​

Baroness Margaret Whittington-Ashworth: Thank you very much, Rose, those are all very interesting statistics. £50 billion does sound like a very large sum the everyday person. However, we were paying, I’m sorry, we were paying over 11.7 billion to the EU each year! In contrast £50 billion to transform our country’s future economic prospect seems like a good deal for the UK taxpayer to me.

Furthermore, by building such an innovative, modern transport system we can keep the UK on the map as an economically active and forward looking country (as since our ground-breaking innovations in the Victorian era we have been falling behind the rest of the world – one only has to look across the channel to France or Germany!). By investing in our infrastructure, the government can send a message of reassurance to the world that Britain’s government is confident in the economic outlook (despite Brexit), thus increasing the confidence of private investors to invest in Britain and maintain economic growth for the whole country – benefiting all, and increasing London’s and other UK major cities’ competitiveness on the global market

​

Daviana Lidington: No, it absolutely is a huge gamble, with no guarantee of success, on a very expensive shiny new toy. With phase 1 only being complete in 2026, HS2 is such a long term investment, and it is far too long term to be able to predict accurate or realistic demand forecasts. We don’t know how our travelling habits will change in the future, especially as technology is advancing very rapidly.  The whole project is such a big gamble. A gamble that does not even guarantee any success or benefits for anyone other than the passengers who actually take this train. The cost-benefit analysis prepared by HS2 Ltd says that 90% of the benefits are expected to be experienced by the passengers of the service, so this only really benefits a tiny proportion of the UK. In terms of wider benefits, academic discourse has told us that when a railway is introduced, the dominant capital city will benefit. Wealth and jobs that arise from HS2 will flow to London, and another study has also informed us that the North may suffer severely from the high speed rail, because they’re going to exposed to extremely fierce competition from the South. It is predicted that a possible 70,000 jobs could be lost in South West England and Wales due to the project, so really this project is shaping out to be very likely to increase inequality, as opposed to regenerate the North, like is being naively suggested. It’s a very expensive project, with a huge opportunity cost, which may do more harm than good to helping the North and closing the North-South divide.

​

Presenter: On the topic of the North-South divide, we have an interesting question from Caroline in Birmingham.

Does the capacity and performance of HS2 directly support the UK’s economic growth, and how will HS2 affect business in Birmingham? Won’t all the benefits go to London?

 

Presenter: Rose, what do you think?

 

Rose Morrison: Thank you. It is interesting that the route doesn’t start in the North. After all, if it was truly about developing the North, we would concentrate on building there first. I am in no way opposed to including London in the HS2 project, absolutely not, but closing the North South divide does not equal allowing people to get to London more quickly, which this project is becoming about right now. If anything, that will benefit London more, because if we will make it even more accessible (since theoretically this won’t be only for the benefit of the rich), then it will encourage people from for example Birmingham to travel to London to work, which will only London businesses further and allow them to grow. No one from London is going to decide to work in Birmingham while still renting in London, it just isn’t economically practical, because London is so much more expensive to live in. Putting a fast train in place won’t do much for the North if the line begins in London. Instead, we should invest in projects in the North, which will bring more direct, quicker benefits.

 

Daviana Lidington: Having high speed rail does not itself alter the economic competitiveness of a particular area, and it will not lead to high levels of economic regeneration. Let’s compare with the UK’s only other high speed rail, HS1. What happened to Kent when it was linked to London by HS1? Well, a study conducted by the head of transport at the Institute of Economic Affairs, Dr Richard Wellings, looks at the relationship between high speed rail and economic growth and it used HS1 as its case study. The study showed that Kent actually suffered after being linked to London by high speed rail. East Kent’s unemployment fell by over 3% more than the national average. Thanet in Kent is one of England’s most deprived areas, despite being served by direct high speed rail services to London. There are some serious questions about whether HS2 will help balance the UK economy. In terms of business in Birmingham, HS2 is London centric, 80% of journeys will begin or end in London, 70% of trips are forecasted to be for leisure purposes, so people and therefore money will go to London, so the jobs will move to London to support this. Over 70% of the forecasted new jobs linked to regeneration from stage one are predicted to be in London. Twice as many journeys have London as a destination rather than originating there. The government talks about regenerating cities through HS2, but the rail really appears to be more focused on extending the London commuter belt. Academic discourse has told us that when a railway is introduced, the dominant capital city will benefit. The government's own cost-benefit analysis suggested the project was very low value, it would be more beneficial to link cities together rather than to London. 

​

Baroness Margaret Whittington-Ashworth: Your reference to HS1 think is quite irrelevant as the London-Birmingham line is different in many ways. Firstly, because the majority of the HS1 line was recognised as within the London ‘commuter belt region’ - it was not an extension of it, although it may have strengthened it. And secondly, because HS1 was not merely linking the economies of Britain, but to those of Europe and the push and pull factors associated with demand and socio-economic consequences are very different, as it was on a continental scale.

A great academic, Feliu, has said that high speed rail links “move what is already moving” – they act a catalyst for economic development. The Office for National Statistics has stated that Birmingham’s economy grew by 4.2 per cent between 2012 and 2013 and by 2015 Birmingham is still the fastest growing city in the UK. Through HS2 this should continue if not increase. It will also allow the activation of labour markets and the resources of the North by increased accessibility/minimizing the physical barrier to these resources. And in response to the idea that HS2 will only benefit passengers - it has been predicted by our friends at KPMG that the West Midlands which will gain the most in absolute terms with a rise of £1.5bn-£3.1bn in output in 2037, and the East Midlands will gain most in percentage terms - between 2.2% and 4.3% increase in output in 2037. Meanwhile, London will only gain 0.5% a year from the new line. This is all as a result of the faster journeying times and increased accessibility, allowing the movement of economic growth to be decentralised from London and spread North across Britain.

 

Professor Jean-Pierre Lambert: Baroness Margaret is completely right, but she just forgot to mention the need for careful site selection and planning for high-speed rail if its economic benefits are to be realized: high-speed rail is likely to exert the most impact if service sector activities are primary in the area served and only in that case the high-speed rail becomes a catalyst for further growth. Whether or not Birmingham and other Midlands cities have this characteristic, is the UK government that decides!

To answer this question, I can bring you my experience with the Paris-Lille line. Lille was traditionally an industrial city located in northern France. Its economy slowed down considerably in the face of competition with cheaper imports from other parts of the world. With strong political leadership and a long term vision, the city was revived through the building of a new TGV station on a former military barracks site near the existing rail station. The remainder of the site is developed into a major mixed-use centre that includes offices, a model retail centre, hotels, public housing, a large conference centre and events hall, and a public park. A program of metropolitan area-wide adaptive reuse of facilities resulted in major reorganization of land use and activity locations,  something very different from cutting forests and forests and forests, don’t you think so? Those same forests that gave inspiration to Wordsworth, Coleridge and many other Romantic English poets. That’s a real pity!    

   

Presenter: That is very true, it is a shame indeed.

What other disadvantages are there to the project? Who will be most affected by those?

​

Daviana Lidington: From my point of view, one of the biggest disadvantages is the opportunity cost. The government wants to spend over £55bn on one single railway line. There are so many alternatives that the public have expressed are a higher priority. In terms of who will be most affected by the disadvantages of HS2, I think it will be those in outlying regions. Research by KPMG is suggesting that HS2 will make 50 places across the UK worse off. Among these are Aberdeenshire, Norfolk East, Dundee, Cardiff and Norfolk West, all these places are expected to experience a significant decrease in economic output.

 

Baroness Margaret Whittington-Ashworth: But, I’m sorry, at the end of the day all those who are affected by HS2 are affected in the short term, in the long term they and their future generations will be rewarded. This is the beauty of the HS2 project is that it will benefit everyone in the country – whether directly through the 89,000 full time jobs (not to mention the 9,000 for construction) and our Local Enterprise Partnerships, or indirectly through more business from economic activity being drawn North by the accessibility and lower ground costs and the badge of modernity to the global investors. Not to mention our plans for new world-class research centres and universities, focusing in the the fields of healthcare and advanced engineering - these new facilities will enable young people of the West Midlands to have brighter future prospects and will help lower the unbelievably high youth unemployment rate, which is currently at 19%! This is what the HS2 project is all about - raising the social and economic prospects for the people of the West Midlands through better job security and education prospects.  

 

Rose Morrison: Well, you’re saying that, but I believe that the worst part of this project is that the advantages of HS2 are very uncertain. I hate to say this, but the government seems to only ever be optimistic when it comes to projects, which usually end in disaster for the public! The Baroness is promising new jobs, apparently 89,000… but the High Speed Industry Leaders group, which is made up of companies hoping to work on the HS2 project, says that 27,000 people are predicted to work on the project by 2020. And we’ve got to give them that they still say this excitedly… Where is everyone getting these figures? This shows the uncertainty of this whole project yet again.

Furthermore, all I hear when the government boasts about job numbers is that infrastructure projects require a lot of workers. Well, yes, obviously. Well done. But have we taken into consideration that at a fraction of the price of this project we could be using those workers to improve many other things? You have all that money to use for thousands of jobs… There already existing railway routes in need of upgrades, why not take care of those first and ease congestion, or build more affordable housing? I think HS2 is taking away resources from other infrastructure projects. Plus, the HS2 Action Alliance says that 70% of jobs in the phase one of the project will be in London, rather than in the North, yet again, benefitting the capital and not the rest of the country.

And of course we can’t forget all those at the top of the HS2 food chain… In 2015, the Financial Times reported that 46 of HS2’s employees earned more than the Prime Minister! That is ridiculous! This included the chairman of the project, who was earning over £200k on a three day week! The chief executive, who was appointed at the beginning of the year will earn over £650k, although I must admit it /is/ £100k less than his predecessor, who was the highest paid public servant in the UK. I have to say, honestly, this makes me reassess my career choices! But looking back at all that, I think that Joe Rukin said it well when he described HS2 as a ;financial black hole’. The spending seems to never end and we haven’t seen even a single metre of the track built.

 

Professor Jean-Pierre Lambert: As it is now, the disadvantages of this project are many. The National Audit Office has underlined in a report the ‘lack of clarity’ about the objectives of the project. The government immediately dismissed the report as ‘out of date’. For a government committed to eliminating the deficit — which preaches austerity on virtually every other area of government spending — it was an astonishing attitude. Just why are high-speed railways allowed to break every rule in the fiscal book? Well… here is the answer: the risk is that transport policy can become the pursuit of icons; almost invariably such projects — such “grand projects” — develop real momentum, driven by strong lobbying. The momentum can make such projects difficult -— and unpopular — to stop, even when the benefit-cost equation does not stack up, or the environmental and landscape impacts are unacceptable. It is a conclusion at which other countries have gradually arrived, having themselves invested billions in high-speed rail. The Hollande government cancelled a planned TGV line from Paris to Nice, declaring that the money would be better invested in existing railways, whose poor condition was soon afterwards highlighted by a crash caused by badly maintained rails in the Parisian suburbs.

​

Baroness Margaret Whittington-Ashworth: Well of course, the building of the biggest infrastructure projects that this country has seen for decades, there will be a small minority of people who will be negatively impacted. But, we have set an excellent system of compensation for people who are negatively affected. For example, people whose homes or small businesses are within 60 meters of the line will have the full property price paid, plus an additional 10% of the property’s value. A similar scheme is also in place for those within 60 and 120 metres, who can apply for a maximum of £100,000, and for those within 120 and 300 metres would be offered between £7,500 to £22,500. I think this is rather good!

​

Rose Morrison: First you say that 50 billion is not a lot, now you’re excited about a couple thousand… Those living that close to the line will still suffer from major disruptions and you’re offering them a couple thousand for homes which were worth a couple hundred thousand beforehand? I have no words. And when it comes to buying people’s houses from them… We’re talking about people who have sometimes spent their whole lives in that house, raised a family, so while it is nice of the government to pay them off, emotional attachment cannot be replaced. Additionally, we must remember that historic building in Chilterns, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire will be put at risk of either complete demolition or damage, which is a real shame.

It is also worth mentioning that part of a completely new £30 million housing estate in Mexborough in South Yorkshire is actually being torn down, because someone in planning realised that it’d be better to have a train there. We’re talking about hundreds of brand new homes, just getting demolished. And to make matters even worse, I’ve heard of people who have found out that their home would be demolished on Facebook, because HS2 Ltd has failed to inform everyone affected. Of course, they blamed someone else (this time it was the postal service), but when they were asked for a list of all homes affected, they had nothing to say. Just no comment. So, do they actually know who will be affected or are we all at risk right now?

And actually, if we look at others who will be negatively affected… the Baroness mentioned ‘our friends’ at the KPMG… but she didn’t say that they also predicted that the project would result in thousands of jobs being lost in Wales, which will be disadvantaged by the HS2 project as Welsh cities will become more isolated from financial hubs like London.

Objectively, the whole project has been the case of not planning properly and failing to prioritise when it comes to infrastructure. Indeed, there have been so many alarm bells and red flags with this project. Yet, we’re doing it.We’re going through with it. A Guardian article I’ve read very nicely referred to it as the ‘zombie train’. And it is. It just refuses to die. The project’s not even complete, and it’s already a trainwreck.

 

Professor Jean-Pierre Lambert: Actually I agree with Rose, that HS2 may be considered a trainwreck. Even by the standards of high-speed rail, HS2 is extravagant. French railways spent £22 million per mile on the high speed line from Paris to Strasbourg, which opened in 2007. Yet, at the latest costings of £42 billion, HS2 will work out at £121 million per mile. The extra cost is partly down to the higher population density of the English countryside, which requires more expense in compulsory purchase orders, but partly because it has been over-engineered. High-speed lines in France and most European countries run to an operating speed of 190 mph. HS2, by contrast, has been designed to 225mph, adding significant costs, since the curves must be significantly less sharp. While TGV trains into Paris run on existing railway lines, the plans for HS2 involve lengthy tunnelling beneath London and the rebuilding of Euston station.

It is as if the government has said to itself: ‘Look, we were late on to the high-speed rail bandwagon. Let’s make up for it by building a line that is even faster.’ But it ignores the fact that British cities are packed more closely than those in France, and therefore do not require such rapid trains to get their inter-city journey times to below the three hours or so at which rail becomes competitive with air travel. That HS2 seems to have persisted is a symptom of how insular our politicians have become. HS2 will only ‘transform’ the geography of Britain if you live the lifestyle of a government minister or senior civil servant. If you are based in London and need to make occasional forays to our half-dozen largest cities, it genuinely will transform your working life. George Osborne, who is the government’s biggest cheerleader for the project, will be able to buzz backwards and forwards to his Cheshire constituency with ease. But what does HS2 have to offer Birmingham, Coventry and other towns that have good rail services now, but will be bypassed by the new line?

​

Presenter: Ok, I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to stop you there...well, as always, this has been a very interesting show, with many different perspectives represented. Oh, Professor Lambert you look like you have something final to say…

​

Professor Jean-Pierre Lambert: Thank you. Anyone listening to me talking right now might come to the conclusion that I don’t like trains. Actually, the opposite is true. There is no finer way to travel. I feel childishly excited even at the sight of an inter-city train. But the figures, I am afraid, are compelling. I cannot understand why George Osborne and his other fellows did not, when presented with the plans for HS2, say to the promoters: ‘That looks wonderful. Now, go away and come back when you have worked out how to do it at a third of the price, whether by cutting the speed, doing without the tunnelling, having fewer fancy stations or whatever.’

​

Presenter: Thank you, Professor. And thanks to all our listeners for listening to this week’s edition of Starting the Week. Will HS2 Phase 1 benefit all Northern urban areas more so than London? If  you are interested in what we have discussed today, would like to share your opinion or have a look at any of the data mentioned, please head to our website, where there is also an opinion poll.

 

Thank you and good night.

​

 

Find out more: 

bottom of page