11th July 2012 - Following the Public Accounts Committee's call for a thorough review of the business case for High Speed Rail Two (HS2) last week (some of the underpinning assumptions are untenable and they call for a rework of the figures) David Cameron's Step-father- in- Law, Viscount Astor, has called a dinner debate in the Lords at 7.30pm today, 11th July 2012.

The title of the question is:

Viscount Astor to ask Her Majesty’s Government’ what progress they have made in reviewing the economic viability, value for money and benefit-cost ratios of the High Speed 2 London to Birmingham, and London to Leeds and Manchester, lines.

Many organisations from The Taxpayer’s Alliance, Institute of Directors, Institute of Economic Affairs, New Economics Foundation, RAC Foundation, the Centre for Policy Studies, and Centre for Business and Economic Research to the Countryside Alliance and the Green Party have expressed serious doubts about the economic case.  

Commenting on the debate, Hilary Wharf, director, HS2 Action Alliance said;

“The case for HS2 is bankrupt. The fact that the business case is visibly crumbling is more evident each day, and it is time for the Government accept the alternative of sweating our existing assets – enabling us to deliver more benefits to more people and more quickly.”

HS2AA explain the key flaws in the business case here.

End

Notes for editors:

6 July, 2012 – The Public Accounts Committee has reported on the sale of HS1 and identified serious issues on the debt, the forecasts used and other assumptions that also expose weaknesses in the case made for HS2.  The Report tells the Department for Transport to revisit their assumptions on HS2 and develop a full understanding of benefits and costs of High Speed travel compared to other alternatives.

Hilary Wharf, Director High Speed 2 Action Alliance (HS2AA) says “The fact that over-optimistic and unrealised forecasts for passenger demand on HS1 has left us with a £4.8bn debt – likely to be over £10bn by 2070 – is bad enough, but that lessons have not been learned for HS2 and errors are being repeated with much bigger numbers and greater debt is wholly unacceptable”

“We welcome the recommendations of this Committee that calls for DfT to rework its business case using more realistic assumptions.”

“We see three clear messages for HS2, that Margaret Hodge, Chair of the Committee, identifies:

1. On forecasting: that the root of the problem for HS1 was the ‘inaccurate and wildly optimistic forecasts’ of passenger numbers, with just a third of the original forecast being achieved. And for HS2, DfT’s ‘unrealistic assumptions about ticket prices’ (that do not assume a premium price) are exaggerating the passenger demand forecasts.  It therefore calls for a rework of the HS2 forecasts and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR).

2. On time saving benefits: that some of DfT assumptions about benefits of faster travel are ‘simply untenable’, in particular the ‘simplifying’ assumption that all time spent on trains is assumed unproductive. This skews appraisals in favour of long distance transport.  It calls for more work to be done to get it right.

3. On alternatives: that there is insufficient understanding of the regional impacts of alternative infrastructure investments, such as transport compared to high speed broadband. It calls for more evaluation of alternative options (including local rail) and urgently developing a full evaluation framework for major projects.

“We support the need to re-look at the pricing assumptions.  Pricing clearly affects demand – if premium prices are assumed one might expect far fewer new passengers (that currently account for 24% of HS2 passengers) or less modal shift (11%).  On top of that the £7bn saving assumed for existing services will be under threat if more people choose not to switch to HS2.”

“Yet again we have a report that says the DfT have got it wrong on how they value time saving benefits. People do work on trains. And this is distorting the decision making process in favour of long distance rather than regional rail improvements. They call for more research yet DfT for 2 years sat on the research they had commissioned that embarrassingly no doubt told them to halve the value being used, as our recent advertisement shows”. 

“HS2 is a hugely expensive project and its clear the Public Accounts Committee believes DfT needs to go back to the drawing board. It’s very encouraging to see the Committee agree with so many of the points we have been making.”

End

Note for editors:

Embargoed to 28 June 2012: A new advertisement (breaking in The Spectator this week) from High Speed Two Action Alliance (HS2AA) highlights the findings of two 2009 Department for Transport (DfT) reports that concluded that the ‘value of time’ figures that the DfT use to calculate the returns from High Speed Two (HS2) should be halved, and their figures are ‘unsupportable’.  The advertisement can be downloaded here.

More than 40% of the projected monetised benefits of HS2 come from assuming businessmen don’t work on trains.

The two reports from June and December 2009 were only released in 2012 long after the consultation and the decision to go ahead with HS2 was taken.

Hilary Wharf, Director HS2AA, says;

“It is at the very best irresponsible of Government to have hidden the report’s findings from consultees back in 2011 and the various committees - the Transport Select Committee, The Major Projects Authority and Public Accounts Committee – that have all investigated HS2. 

“Allowing for the recommended halving of the value of time and using the DfT’s own figures HS2 now delivers a Benefit Cost Ratio of just 90p.  This means HS2 loses money for every £1 of taxpayers’ money spent. But the Government just brushed this evidence under the carpet and said in their 2012 decision documents that the old Value of Time figures are ‘fit for purpose’ and ‘the best currently available’*.

“This is a £33bn transport project, the biggest for a generation, and yet these reports show its business case relies on outdated information and that crucial information was cynically hidden from view.”

Ends

Note for editors:

11 May 2012 – A new advertising campaign targeting MPs and members of the Lords through political magazines is being launched by High Speed 2 Action Alliance (HS2AA) today.  The advertisement addresses the ‘law of diminishing returns’ in relation to High Speed Rail Two (HS2) and its claimed economic and welfare benefits.

Despite using out of date information, ignoring the realities of modern working practices and the alternatives to HS2 the DFT has been forced to reduce the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) for HS2 to as little as £1.20 for every pound of tax payers money spent on Phase 1. The full ‘Y’ route delivers a BCR of just £1.40.  The 2013 planned hybrid bill only covers phase 1 of HS2. 

The DfT has also been forced to admit that the best alternative to HS2 (from 51M) offers a BCR of more than five pounds per pound spent.

If the current rail demand forecast model and the November 2011 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is factored in the BCR for both phases of HS2 dip well below £1.

The ads explain that the Department for Transport (DfT) is:
- using an outdated rail forecast model
- using data from 2001 on business people’s earnings
- assuming that all time on trains is wasted
- ignoring, as well as deliberately over inflating, the cost of practical and real alternatives to HS2

Hammond
In his submission to the Transport Select Committee, the previous Minister for Transport, Philip Hammond stated “A BCR of 2.6 is quite reasonable for a train project.  If it was to fall much below 1.5 I would certainly put it under some very close scrutiny.”

Just yesterday Philip Hammond, now Minster for Defence, said about another hugely expensive project "When the facts change, the responsible thing to do is to examine the decision made and be willing to change, however inconvenient that may be”.   HS2AA hopes that the current Transport Minister is willing to change her mind on HS2 as Hammond has been on Navy jets.

Public Accounts Committee
The Public Accounts Committee has been highly critical of the HS2 business case and the assumptions it includes around passenger forecasts and projected costs.  HS2 was given an Amber/Red grading by the Cabinet Gateway process with the Major Projects Authority.  The Chair of the committee described this as “not good enough”.

Commenting on the advertisements, Hilary Wharf, director, HS2AA, said;
“With the UK firmly in the grip of recession it is critical that the Government only invests in projects that will give all of the country a real return.  All the facts point to HS2 not being such a project. How much more evidence does the Government need for it to finally cancel this folly?”

ends

Note for editors:

DfT reduced to making bogus comparisons rather than being up front about the latest figures

12 April 2012:
New business case figures are a whole lot worse
Latest DfT figures on value for money of HS2 show it’s now worse than even they previously said.  The Benefit to Cost ratio (BCR) is just 1.2 for Phase 1 (DfT having discovered that they increased rail demand in Jan 2012 even more than they did previously (in Feb 2011).  This wiped 0.2 off their previous BCR (of 1.4) and 0.3/0.4 for the full Y.

DfT make bogus comparisons
In an attempt to find some better figures, DfT now compare the extra costs/benefits of a high speed line (HS2) with a new conventional speed line. This completely ignores their own latest business case that shows HS2 is plainly bad value for money (at just £1.2 of benefits for every £1 cost) and that of the best alternative (ie 51m’s ) which is three times better value for money than HS2 (about £5 benefit for every £1 cost).

3-year old research published
DfT finally publish the March 2009/10 Oxera/Arup research that confirms that the rail model they used overestimates their answers for long distance rail travel – which affects every HS2 trip.  The impact of this was included in their 2012 analysis and wipes 0.4 off their BCR (so it’s now really just 0.8 for phase 1). This means every £1 spent loses money (and gets back just 80 pence).

New analysis of consultation responses
In an attempt to massage reality DfT emphasise new figures on those supporting HS2.  But they neglect to mention that the new analysis also says that 73% of supporters were standard campaign responses eg postcards rather than just 5% of all those who opposed HS2.

Hilary Wharf, Director HS2AA said “Every time the business case is reviewed it gets worse. Back in March 2010 there was a BCR of 2.4 and now it’s half that.  The reduction for the full Y is even worse.  Originally it was 4 and now its 1.3 to 1.5.”
“Even this latest admission ignores the fact that there is no justification for assuming even a doubling in rail demand or that the only question is when that point is reached”
“It is scandalous to take 3 years to publish important research that DfT themselves commissioned. We now know that even when they undertook their demand modelling for HS2 they knew it was going to exaggerate the demand.  And to simply show the impact as a sensitivity test and not to change their base case is dishonest”
“When will the treasury insist that HS2 ltd are just throwing good money after bad and call a halt to this huge waste of money - £34bn.”

End

Notes to Editors:

Government's Decision on HS2 (10th January 2012 )and HS2AA's response

On 10th January 2012, Justine Greening, Secretary of State for Transport announced her decision to proceed with HS2.

HS2 Action Alliance (HS2AA) immediately issued the following statement in response to the decision by the government to approve the HS2, the world’s most expensive railway connecting London with Birmingham.

Bruce Weston, a Director of HS2AA said;

“Justine Greening has just committed each and every household in the UK to pay £1,700 for a railway that is not needed and not wanted. If she had based her decision on cold, hard facts she would have realised that there are far better, far cheaper and far more environmentally friendly ways of investing in our transport infrastructure.  It should not have been difficult for her, as she admits that

• Uprating the existing railway (‘the 51m alternative’) is three times better value for money than HS2
   
• The crucial assumption about the value of time savings (which now accounts for about half the benefits) is wrong, but DfT still use it.   Hardly a robust basis for spending £33bn!
   
• The business case for HS2 is even worse than for last year’s consultation
   
• Under 1,000 people a day would use the service to go to Heathrow, but they still go ahead with the Heathrow spur
   
• Just 3% of HS2 passengers would be won from air (previously 6%) but 24% of HS2 passengers would be entirely new journeys – hardly a green endorsement”

“It is extremely embarrassing for the government, which has failed to win public approval in the consultation process and failed to win support from the Transport Select Committee. By pushing ahead now, it is exposing the truth that HS2 is nothing more than a grotesque vanity project for an administration desperate to secure a legacy."

“At HS2AA, we believe in high speed rail but only if it can be proven to deliver countrywide benefits without saddling the country with debt that it cannot afford. HS2, by trimming a mere thirty minutes off the journey time between London and Birmingham, cannot be a priority when there are other routes that are more heavily overcrowded and more in need of investment, and the business case for HS2 is so bad.”

“Nor is HS2 a satisfactory economic stimulus for the UK economy. It will destroy four jobs for every one that it creates as other rail projects and vital public services are cut and it will do nothing to drive growth in the vast majority of the country”.

The principal reasons why HS2AA opposes HS2 are:

HS2AA Ltd announce decision to take Government to court over High Speed 2 (HS2)

3 April 2012:  We have had a brilliant response to our appeals for funds for taking legal action over the January 2012 decision on HS2.  In a matter of a few weeks thousands of ordinary people in communities from London to Staffordshire and beyond have responded to the appeals, giving most generously, and raising the six figure sum that was needed.

HS2AA are now able to announce that we can proceed with two judicial reviews.  One deals with environmental issues, and the other is about fighting for a fair deal for compensation. In both cases the Government failed to follow the proper processes required – if they had they would have reached a different conclusion.

We have two strong legal teams who are specialists in their fields and believe we have two powerful cases that Government must now answer.  SJ Berwins with David Elvin, QC, of Landmark Chambers are handling our environmental case, and Leigh Day & Co with David Wolfe, QC, of Matrix Chambers our compensation case.

HS2AA Ltd are the claimant and working with a wide range of resident groups, societies, parish councils, action groups, and environmental groups.

What this has shown is that the opposition movement has got even stronger as a result of the 10 January decision to proceed with HS2.  Ordinary people are frustrated that the Government are not listening and are joining together to fight this unacceptable waste of taxpayer’s money.

End

Notes to Editors:

HS2AA fully support the letter of complaint to the EU commission over the UK’s decision on High Speed Rail, that the Berks, Bucks, and Oxon Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) are sending today.  Hilary Wharf, Director of HS2AA says “The UK has a bad record in applying EU environmental legislation – and if the UK courts are not going to remedy this for High Speed 2 then we are confident that the EU Commission will”

The press release from Berks, Bucks, and Oxon Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) is as follows:

Wildlife Trust raises complaint with European Commission over UK Government’s decision on High Speed Rail

The Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust is today (Monday 26 March) taking the unprecedented action of writing to the European Commission claiming that the UK Government chose the High Speed Rail (HS2)  route between London and Birmingham without taking proper account of its environmental impacts.

The Government did not carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which would have required a thorough investigation of the environmental impacts of the HS2 route and viable alternatives. As a result, the process used by HS2 Ltd ignored vital information about the potential impacts of HS2 on nature reserves, protected species and important wildlife sites, claims the Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust.

Philippa Lyons, Chief Executive of the Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust explains why the Trust is taking this action: “The Government believed it wasn’t necessary to carry out an SEA. As a result they didn’t know about the nature reserves the route cuts through, or the precious woodland habitats of Bernwood Forest in Buckinghamshire, where the very rare Bechstein’s bats were discovered by a local bat group.

“The Wildlife Trust has never before been driven to complain to the European Commission, but the refusal of this Government to take proper account of wildlife issues when deciding on HS2 is beyond belief. Even now it is refusing to take our advice and carry out proper environmental assessments for Phase 2 of the HS2 route.”

The Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust is collaborating with four other Wildlife Trusts affected by Phase 1 of HS2, other conservation groups and the HS2 Action Alliance, which recently sent a letter to the Government calling for a Judicial Review of its decision to go ahead without doing an SEA.

“The European Commission will not investigate our complaint while the UK courts are examining the same issues,” says Philippa Lyons. “But by submitting the complaint now, these important issues are on the Commissioner’s desk ready for immediate investigation. If the UK courts either refuse to examine them or decide they do not contravene UK legislation, the EC will be able to investigate them instead.”

The Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust highlighted the impacts of the HS2 proposed route on wildlife in its response to the Government’s consultation during 2011. Thousands of responses raised similar concerns, with the vast majority calling on the Government to think again about HS2, but these were ignored by the Secretary of State when the route was announced in January this year.

Ends

Further information

Wendy Tobitt, Media & Campaigns Manager, Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust

Tel: 01865 788318 and 07748 641452

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for photographs of wildlife and habitats at risk because of HS2

Notes to Editors

Embarrassed DfT create spurious statistics to cover up their poor business case

15 February 2012: DfT yesterday respond to HS2AA’s 13 February letter about legal action by quoting figures to suggest HS2 delivers £4 of benefit for every additional £1 spent. This was misleading. It is at least three times better than the real facts that DfT themselves published in January when they took their decision to proceed with HS2, and it's still worse than the prudent and much better alternative of uprating WCML, that delivers more than £5 benefit.

Bruce Weston, Director HS2AA, says "DfT's January 2012 business case makes absolutely clear that HS2 delivers just £1.40 benefit for every £1 subsidy for London to West Midlands phase, and £1.6 to £1.9 for the full Y.  This is of course before using the latest economic and rail demand forecast tools - which DfT say wipes £0.5 off these figures ie the £1.4 drops to just 90 pence benefit for every £1 spent.  These are not our figures, they are DfT's.

“Even this is based on DfT still assuming that every minute of time spent on board is wasted - which they now admit is not true.  Adjust for that, which accounts for more than 50% of the schemes benefits, and any shred of a business case has evaporated”

“DfT are choosing to ignore the alternative of uprating WCML that is three times better value for money, again according to their own numbers.   It produces £5.17 benefit for every £1 subsidy and more than meets the DfT long distance rail demand forecast.  Even Network Rail did not contest this" he added.

At a time when UK are facing further pressure on Government spending HS2 is the wrong priority and makes no economic sense.

ends

For more information please contact: Richard Houghton, Aspect Consulting, Tel: 07803 178 037

Notes

HS2AA GIVES TRANSPORT MINISTER NOTICE THAT IT INTENDS TO CHALLENGE HS2 PLANS THROUGH JUDICIAL REVIEW AND NOTIFIES EUROPEAN COMMISSION ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

13 February 2012: HS2 Action Alliance (HS2AA) has served a formal letter on Justine Greening, Secretary of State for Transport, asking her to abandon her decision to proceed with HS2.  The letter also gives her notice that HS2AA may challenge her decision through judicial review.

The grounds for the legal challenge are the failure of the Department for Transport to comply with the legally binding requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Regulations 2004 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 

The SEA Regulations require a full strategic environmental assessment of any important infrastructure project and an assessment of all alternatives to be completed before any proposals are presented for public consultation.  The Government has failed to do this with HS2.

A separate letter of complaint regarding the UK Government’s non-compliance with the SEA Directive is also being sent today to the European Commission, inviting the Commission to investigate the actions of the UK Government on this matter.

HS2AA’s letter stating its grounds for why it intends to seek judicial review is supported by the following organisations:

Four Wildlife Trusts along the route, Chilterns Conservation Board, Conserve the Chilterns and Countryside, besides the more than 70 Action Groups and Resident Associations affiliated to HS2AA

Commenting on the letter, Thomas Crane, Director, HS2AA said:
“HS2 is an environmental disaster for our country. It will irreversibly damage many landscapes, ancient woodlands and wildlife habitats which simply cannot be replaced. It will also do nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

“If the Government is determined to push such a scheme, the economic justification should be overwhelming, but this simply isn’t the case. Figures buried by the Department of Transport on January 10th, the announcement day, indicated that the already shaky business case put forward to justify HS2 is now virtually nonexistent.

“The DfT and HS2 Ltd has ridden rough shod over public opinion and many expert voices to ignore all viable alternatives in its desperation to promote HS2.  We are still hopeful that Justine Greening will see sense and halt a project which offers such limited benefit for so much environmental damage. 

“If the government had done the assessment properly they simply would not have reached the conclusion they did” he added.

Ends

For more information please contact: Richard Houghton, Aspect Consulting, Tel: 07803 178 037

For spokesperson for Wildlife Trusts, please contact:  Matt Jackson, Head of Conservation Policy, Berks Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust, Tel: 01865 775476 Ext 205

Notes

29th December 2012 - As Justine Greening prepares to give the go-ahead to High Speed Rail Two (HS2) in January (despite widespread public opposition), members of Action Groups Against High Speed Two (AGAHST) along with railway expert Chris Stokes, have been giving some thought to what her New Year’s resolutions should be for the UK’s rail network.

AGAHST suggests that the Minister makes the following resolutions as well as abandoning the white elephant that is HS2:

1. Northern Hub - confirm investment in the Northern Hub, (£500m) and Ledburn junction (£243m). Ledburn investment would enable commuter capacity to Milton Keynes and Northampton to be doubled in circa 5 years time relieving overcrowding now. HS2 will not deliver any relief until 2026.

2. Electrification - of the Midland Main Line; Cardiff to Swansea; Reading to Birmingham and Bristol to York

3. Extra rolling stock - in two to three years to relieve existing overcrowding for commuter services in Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Bristol and Paddington

4. Timetable - develop a national interval timetable pattern, with greatly improved connections across the network. Switzerland already has this.

5. Speeds - improve speeds on key regional routes. Liverpool to Manchester line is slower than 100 years ago!

6. Capacity - develop proposals to increase capacity on the really overcrowded routes: Great Eastern; Great Western; South Western and Brighton Main lines. West Coast Main Line is not the priority, as shown by our peak counts

7. Transport strategy - prepare an overall transport strategy and rail / air / road connectivity to include a re-examination of a high speed Heathrow hub development

Commenting on the resolutions, Jerry Marshall, Chairman, AGAHST, says;
“While HS2 might looks good from round the cabinet table, our research shows the public don’t see it as a priority and there are a number of much more affordable developments of the rail network which will dramatically improve the services for commuters and leisure travellers. Let’s hope
Greening uses the Christmas break productively and realises that HS2 is not the answer to any question, let alone rail capacity and regional economic development.”

ends

20th December 2011- A YouGov public opinion poll has found that nearly two thirds of the public oppose money being spent on the planned £32 billion high speed rail link between London and Birmingham (HS2).

5^TH December 2012 – Research carried out by HS2 Action Alliance, and verified by independent research firm CRT Viewpoint, has discovered that long distance trains leaving Euston during the week day, evening peak period (16.30 to 18.59) on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) had an average occupancy rate or load factor of just 56 percent. 

This directly contradicts claims by the DfT and HS2 Ltd that the lack of capacity on the WCML is the central reason why the £32b HS2 rail line needs to be built. 

As Philip Hammond (past Minister for Transport) said to the Transport Select Committee earlier this year;

“If the compelling case for additional capacity... was not there then a large part of the case for high speed rail would be undermined.”

A DfT spokesperson confirmed this weekend their view that;

“HS2 could provide a solution to a long term capacity problem that is very real now and only expected to get worse for at least the next 15 years.    the capacity problem is very real now…”

Manchester

The occupancy of the trains during peak period trains to Manchester was even lower than other destinations at an average of 45%.  This further undermines the business case for second phase of HS2, which is planned to run from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. 

Milton Keynes

The loadings on trains making an extra stop at Milton Keynes were significantly higher with an average loading of 107 percent.  But commuters from Milton Keynes to London will have to wait until 2026 – another 15 years for the additional capacity to be provided by HS2, despite cheaper, faster and more effective solutions being available almost immediately.

Fares cliff

The first trains after the peak ends (19.00 to 19.30) had higher loadings (67%).  This demonstrates the effect on demand of the much cheaper fares that kick in when the off peak travel begins.

Commenting on the research findings, Hilary Wharf, director, HS2 Action Alliance, said;

“With extra capacity being at the very centre of the DfT and HS2 Ltd’s argument for the need for the £32 billion project, this research shows that the business case for HS2 is fatally flawed.  Two extra carriages are planned for WCML services in 2012 which will reduce crowding further.

“We had to run our own research because the DfT refused a Freedom of Information request for the load figures.  Having seen how low they really are in the peak it is clear why they tried to hide them.”

Ends

Methodology:

The methodology counted passengers onto each train, on Thursday 17 and Tuesday 22 Nov 2011. A third count took place on Thursday 24^th November 2011.

Over the two days 66 trains were counted. Although the sample is small, CRT Viewpoint say they believe this gives a fair reflection of mid-week loading, away from a holiday period, on two normal working days.

The loading figures are for both first and standard class carriages as counters were unable to board the trains and separate the two classes. All trains were formed of nine car Pendolino’s except the Holyhead and Wrexham services which were formed of 10 car Voyager trains

CRT conducted three audit counts on the three platform access ramps on Tuesday 22^nd November 2011 in order to verify the accuracy of the counts being taken

The methodology used is no different from how many of the train companies do their counts in order to get loading figures.

18th November 2011

IoD members unsure about HS2

• Improvements to existing intercity and commuter lines more important than HS2, say directors
• Directors concerned about value for money
• Larger proportions think that airport capacity increases would improve their productivity

A new comprehensive survey of over 1,200 IoD members reveals that HS2 is a long way down the list of business transport priorities, with a significant number thinking that a new high speed line would represent poor value for money.  The survey, which asked directors for their priorities for new investment as well as their views on the current state of Britain’s transport infrastructure, also reveals that business leaders think that improvements to existing roads are more important than new roads.

Simon Walker, Director General of the Institute of Directors, said:

“Good transport infrastructure is crucial to IoD members up and down the country.  Businesses are not happy with the current state of the UK’s infrastructure, but our survey of IoD members shows that directors want to see improvements to existing roads and rail services above all.  In straightened times, choices will have to be made between some improvements to existing rail lines and a new high speed line, and we want to see the Government take the business view seriously.”

He added:

“IoD members are enthusiastic about airport capacity expansion, but the planning system has held back development.  We need to see bold and financially sound decisions made about upgrading our congested networks.”

The key findings of the survey include:

• 86% think that investment in congested urban roads is important to their business, while 83% think that improvements to existing motorways are important.  By comparison, 49% think that new motorways, and 37% new local roads, are important.
• 79% think that investment in improving existing intercity services is important to their business, compared with 54% who think that high speed rail investment is important.
• 38% think that the public spending required to build HS2 would represent poor value for money, compared with 30% who think it would represent good value.
• 48% think that increases in airport capacity outside London and the South East would have a positive impact on the productivity of their business; 40% think the same for increased airport capacity in London and the South East, and just 23% agree that a new high speed rail line between Birmingham and London would improve their productivity.
• IoD members are not happy with the current state of the UK’s transport infrastructure.  82% think that UK roads are too congested, while 61% think that intercity rail fares are poor value for money.
• 76% think that the planning system has had a negative impact on the speed and ease of completing infrastructure projects over the past decade.

• The IoD conducted a Policy Voice poll of 1,245 members in August 2011.  Directors were asked for their views on the existing state of the UK’s transport infrastructure and their priorities for new investment.

The full survey report can be found at: http://www.iod.com/mainwebsite/resources/document/member_transport_survey_2011.pdf

The original release can be found here: http://press.iod.com/2011/11/18/iod-members-unsure-about-hs2/

8^thNovember 2011– Today’s Transport Select Committee (TSC) report on High Speed Rail Two (HS2) recommends revisions that destroy the business plan case for the £30 billion project, according to opponents of the scheme.

Value of Productivity Gains

In its report, the TSC has called for a revised business plan with ‘a lower value attached to time savings’ (para 69). With faster journey time gains equating to 40 percent of the hoped for economic return delivered by HS2, any reduction in their value pushes the project below the Government’s stated minimum acceptable Net Benefit Return of 1.5.

In addition, if the value of time saved is reduced the need for ultra-high speed rail - which cannot follow existing transport corridors - is removed and alternatives to HS2 become more attractive.  The TSC said that the slower routes were prematurely ruled out (para 68).

Alternatives to HS2

The report also demands that the Government must explain in detail why HS2 is better than alternative solutions (para 107).  A full review of priorities for the rail network and detailed plans for alternatives to HS2 are detailed at www.betterthanhs2.org.

18 trains an hour

To meet the passenger demand projected by HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport HS2 will need to run 18 trains an hour on the new line.  The TSC report raises concerns on the technical feasibility of HS2, pointing out that “18 trains an hour on a high speed line has not been attempted elsewhere” (para 116). 

Specialist consultants SYSTRAsuggest that delivering this number of trains will require “significant technical and engineering developments”. While HS2 Ltd has stated it will be possible using technology that will be available in the middle of this decade, they have as yet failed to provide evidence of this.

Commenting on the report, Bruce Weston, of HS2 Action Alliance said:

‘When you get past the headlines, the Select Committee has almost as many misgivings about HS2 as we do. 

They agree that the value of time savings is exaggerated, that opting for very high speed is therefore questionable, that the alternatives to a new railway have had insufficient attention, and that the planned intensity of services is a technical risk. 

They are unhappy with the consultation process, feeling that the decision should not be taken before a proper case for the Y is published and consulted upon. 

When you work all this through the case for HS2 simply falls apart.”

Ends

For more information please contact:

1. Overcrowding - HS2 offers no solution to current overcrowding for journeys to Birmingham for 15 years and Leeds and Manchester for 22 years
2. Incremental - Investments in alternatives are incremental  so there is no wasted investment if the significant demand growth forecasted by HS2 does not materialise
3. Quickly – Improvements can be introduced much more quickly than HS2 which offers no respite to train passengers until 2026 at the earliest
4. Low risk – Unlike HS2 the alternative approaches are low risk and can be commercially justified.  WCML capacity can be trebled with targeted investment of the order of £2bn
5. Resilience - Upgrades to existing infrastructure will provide a resilience allowing services to continue if a locomotive breaks down, unlike HS2 that is relying on as yet unavailable technology and a single track
6. 18 Trains/hr – HS2 will not be able to deliver the additional capacity claimed as this relies on running 18 trains per hour which can not technically be done.  HS2 Ltd continues to refuse to release its evidence to justify the claim that 18 trains per hour is possible.
7. Disruption – HS2 will create eight years of significant disruption as Euston is rebuilt.  Significant passenger dispersal problems will be created in London as Kings Cross passengers are diverted from Euston.  The alternative requires none of this work to be carried out.

The Stop HS2 campaign will deliver its petition to Downing Street today, ahead of a Parliamentary debate on the proposed high speed rail network on Thursday. This comes just a month after campaigners were told their petition would not count in terms of getting a Parliamentary debate and they would have to start from scratch. The new Stop HS2 petition, which calls for at least a public inquiry if HS2 is not to be scrapped, is currently 13^th out of almost 8,000 (7905 at time of writing) petitions on the Government e-petitions website.

Ahead of the delivery of the petition, Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP said: "The supposed "greenest Government ever" showed its true blue colours at last week's Conservative party conference. Let's be clear: HS2 as it stands has little to do with a "green" transport future. It will likely do nothing to reduce transport emissions, nothing to improve local and regional commuter networks on which millions depend, and nothing to reduce the capital's economic dominance over the regions. It's for those reasons and many more that Greens oppose HS2."

Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom, who has been at the forefront of the parliamentary campaign against HS2 said: “This will cost every family in Britain £1000 each, so it’s not good enough to say it’s going to solve a problem, so let’s do it anyway. If money were no object, there’s lots and lots of things like that we might do, but money is an object at a time when this when every penny has to count.”

Former Labour Paymaster General and Coventry MP Geoffrey Robinson said:

“ The existing rail network can be expanded much more cost effectively by investing in new trains, electrification and extended platforms at a fraction of the cost of building HS2.”

Stop HS2 Campaign Coordinator Joe Rukin said:

“The Financial Times, The Economist and The Sunday Telegraph have joined us and several other institutions in questioning the need for HS2, the cost, the lack of benefits and the fact that there are many other more deserving transport projects which should be prioritised first. What people still don’t realise is the fact there is absolutely no environmental case for doing this. People imagine that getting more people onto a high speed train would be good for the environment, but this is simply not the case. Besides the obvious destruction of green spaces and habitats, due to the energy needed to get to the speeds we are talking about. HS2 is also clearly intended to promote air travel. Besides the fact that it will connect airports, any internal flights which might get cancelled will be replaced with new routes, with bigger planes going greater distances.”

“The way that HS2 has progressed so far, without actually looking at what is best for the transport network in a strategic manner is just insane. The public consultation was an absolute farce, with incomplete plans and admissions that many aspects of the work had not been done. At a recent Transport Select Committee meeting, HS2 Chief Engineer Andrew McNaughton still hadn’t got answers to questions we’ve been asking him for over a year now, with the favourite response from the panel being ‘we haven’t done the work on that aspect’. HS2 Ltd still claim they don’t know basic things like what the land take will be, no-one who is directly affected has ever received any direct contact from HS2 Ltd and how they claim they know it will cost £33bn to get to Leeds and Manchester when they haven’t even produced a route yet is beyond me.”

Notes to Editors:

1. For more information contact Joe Rukin on 07811 371880 or Penny Gaines on 07765 780553.
2. The Stop HS2 petition will be handed in to Downing Street at 1.30 (arriving at the gates at 1.20) on Tuesday 11^th October.
3. The HS2 debate in the main chamber of Parliament is expected to start some time after 2pm on Thursday 13^th October. Stop HS2 campaigners will be present at Old Palace Yard (opposite the Palace of Westminster) from 10.30.
4. The Rail Summit takes place at 22 Berners Street, London, W1T 3DD on 12^th & 13^th October ( www.ico.org ). The debate “HS2 – is it in the country’s best interests?” will take place at 3.25 on Thursday 13^th October. Details at  http://www.railsummit.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/284455/C108-Rail-Summit-E05.pdf

People can sign the petition against HS2 via the Stop HS2 website; http://stophs2.org/news/378-petition-government-stop-hs2/ or directly at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/353.

Media advisory

High Speed 2 Action Alliance to launch alternative manifesto at Tory Conference

• Blue print will save £31bn, deliver faster improvements to UK rail network
• Government urged to scrap plan that will cost £800m planning in this parliament alone

30th September 2011 – High Speed 2 Action Alliance (HS2AA), the campaign against the Government’s plan for a new high speed rail line, will launch its alternative vision for Britain’s future rail network at a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester this Sunday.

The document, A Better Railway for Britain, which has been prepared by leading railway experts and economists, will highlight ways to improve the nation’s railway infrastructure using existing track at a fraction of the cost of the government’s planned £33bn project, HS2.

The manifesto will also highlight inherent flaws in the current HS2 plan, which will exacerbate the country’s north-south divide, disrupt rail services for a large number of commuters and fail to deliver any of its green promises.

The launch of the manifesto on Sunday will be attended by politicians from the conservative party. Speakers include Chris Stokes, the document’s co-author and former director of the Strategic Rail Authority, and Jerry Marshall, chairman of AGAHST, the Action Groups Against High Speed Two, who will chair the meeting.

HS2AA plan to have a high profile at the conference’s Manchester venue, where at 11am on Sunday they will also unveil an advertisement campaign highlighting the fact that the planning budget for HS2 in this parliament alone - £800m – would be enough to pay the salaries of 19,000 police officers.

Their response to the select committee fails to give credible answers

9 September 2011– Analysis by HS2AA of the written responses by the Department for Transport’s (DfT) and High Speed Two Ltd (HS2) to questions from the Transport Select Committee shows how in 40 pages they fail to patch the holes in their case.

Bruce Weston, reviewing these submissions said “It’s clear that the Government has no real answers to the many questions that the Select Committee has raised on the heart of their case. Rather than continuing to offer misrepresentations and invalid justifications, it is time for the Government to reconsider their commitment to HS2”.

21 June - Commenting on today’s Oxera report on the case for high speed rail, Jerry Marshall, Chairman of Action Groups Against High Speed Two said:

"This report shows that Philip Hammond's high speed rail project is going off the rails. It shows that the Government's case is shot throgh with uncertainty and that the estimates of the benefits are based on a full network to Manchester and Leeds, yet the Department have only done detailed work on the first stage from London to Birmingham. The DfT's consultation is fundamentally flawed and should be halted until this detailed work has been carried out.