My Lords, with leave I will make a statement on High Speed Rail between London and the major cities of the Midlands, the North and Scotland.
Travel and trade between Britain’s major population and economic centres are the lifeblood of our economy and society. They require transport networks which are high capacity, efficient and sustainable.
As we grow wealthier as a nation, so we travel more and move more freight. 19th Century Britain led the world in the development of railways. Serious planning for a national motorway network was begun by the War Cabinet in 1943; the major motorways were all opened over a 32 year period between 1959 and the completion of the M40 in 1991.
Our preliminary assessment, published last January, was that substantial additional transport capacity would be needed from the 2020s between our major cities, starting with London to the West Midlands, Britain’s two largest conurbations. By then, the West Coast Main Line will be full. By 2033 the average long distance West Coast Main Line train is projected to be 80% full, with routine very severe overcrowding for much of the time; and there will also be a significant increase in traffic and congestion on the motorways between and around London, Birmingham and Manchester.
The Government’s view is that high speed rail could be the most efficient and sustainable way to provide more capacity between these conurbations. So last January, we set up a company, HS2 Ltd, to analyse the business case for a high speed rail line initially between London and the West Midlands; to make detailed route proposals for this first stretch of line should the government decide to proceed; and to outline options for extension to cities further north and to Scotland.
HS2 Ltd reported to me in December. I am grateful for the immense amount of expert work done by its staff. HS2 Ltd has shared much of its work and analysis with the local authorities potentially affected, and with Transport for London, the Scottish Executive, and statutory environmental bodies. I am grateful to them all for their constructive engagement.
I am today publishing HS2 Ltd’s report together with the Government’s proposed high speed rail strategy, which is based on HS2 Ltd’s analysis. In summary, this strategy is for the development of an initial core high speed network which would link London to Birmingham, Manchester, the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds, with high speed trains running from the outset through to Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. This Y-shaped network of about 335 miles in total, with branches north of Birmingham running either side of the Pennines, would be capable of carrying trains at up to 250 mph and could be extended to other cities and to Scotland.
There are six principal reasons why the Government is proposing this strategy. First, transport capacity.
The extra capacity provided by a high speed line would more than treble existing rail capacity on the West Coast Main Line corridor. This is not only because of the new track, but also the far greater length of train which high speed lines and stations make possible, and from the segregation of high speed trains from other passenger and freight services.
By contrast, the most ambitious conceivable upgrade of existing rail lines to Birmingham would yield less than half this extra capacity, at greater cost in terms of both money and disruption than a high speed line, and without most of the journey time savings. This analysis is critical to the argument as to whether investment in high speed rail unjustifiably diverts investment from the existing railway. The most likely alternative over time is to spend more achieving less. This accords with the experience of the recent £9 billion upgrade of the West Coast Main Line whose benefits, though considerable, were essentially incremental and came after years of chronic disruption to passengers and businesses.
Furthermore, by transferring long distance services to the high speed line, large amounts of capacity would also be released on the existing West Coast Main Line for commuter and freight services, including services to key areas of housing growth around Milton Keynes and Northampton.
Second, the journey time savings from such a line would be significant. The journey time from London to the West Midlands would be reduced to between 30 and 50 minutes, depending on stations used, with Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield all brought to within 75 minutes of London – down from almost two hours 10 minutes now – and through services from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London down to just three and a half hours.
However, thirdly, the connectivity gains of high speed rail come not only from the faster trains, but also from the new route alignments which comprise the proposed ‘Y’ network of lines from London to Birmingham, and then on north to Manchester, and north-east to the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds. This new network would provide a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to overcome the acute connectivity limitations of the Victorian rail network, with its three separate and poorly-inter-connected main lines from London to the North, each with its own separate London terminus.
By contrast the high speed line, routed via the West Midlands, would not only slash the journey time to London from Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield; it also nearly halves journey times from these cities to Birmingham. So the East Midlands, the North-West and the North-East gain dramatically improved connections within the Midlands and the north, as well as to London. These connections would be further enhanced by the Northern Hub proposals to upgrade the transpennine route from Manchester to Leeds.
Fourthly, this high speed network would enable key local, national and international networks to be better integrated. In particular, by including on the approach of the high speed line to central London an interchange station with the new Crossrail line just west of Paddington, the benefits of both Crossrail and the high speed line are greatly enhanced. Such a Crossrail Interchange station would deliver a fast and frequent service to London’s West End, the City and Docklands giving a total journey time, for example, from central Birmingham to Canary Wharf of just 70 minutes and from Leeds to Canary Wharf of just 1 hour 40 minutes. This Crossrail Interchange station would also provide a fast, one-stop Heathrow Express service to Heathrow, in place of the long and tortuous journey to the airport currently experienced by passengers arriving at Euston, Kings Cross and St Pancras.
Similarly, an interchange station close to Birmingham Airport would provide an efficient link to the M6 and M42, the West Coast Main Line, the wider West Midlands and the airport itself.
Fifth, high speed rail would be a sustainable way forward. High speed trains emit far less carbon than cars or planes per passenger mile, and the local impact of high speed lines is far less than that of entirely new motorway alignments in terms of land take and air quality. For these reasons the Government takes the view that high speed rail is preferable both to new inter-city motorways, and to major expansion of domestic aviation, even if these were able to deliver equivalent inter-city capacity and connectivity benefits.
Finally, HS2 Ltd assess that all these benefits far outweigh the estimated costs. With the project yielding more than £2 of benefit for every £1 of cost, HS2 Ltd estimate the capital cost of the first 120 miles of the line from London to the West Midlands at between £15.8 and £17.4bn. This is broadly similar to the cost of Crossrail, which is being built over the next seven years.
The cost per mile beyond Birmingham is then estimated to halve, taking the overall cost of the 335 mile ‘Y’ shaped network to about £30bn. This cost would be phased over more than a decade after the start of construction, which would not begin until after the completion of Crossrail in 2017. Indeed, the high speed line would be the transport infrastructure successor project to Crossrail, deploying its skill base and project management expertise, and with a similar annual rate of spend.
I turn now to the specifics of the recommended route. As with any major infrastructure project, there will need to be extensive and detailed consultation, particularly with local communities affected. Significant time will be needed to ensure that consultation is properly conducted and considered before the finalisation of government policy and the introduction of a Hybrid Bill.
Subject to this consultation, the London terminus for the high speed line would be Euston; the Birmingham City Centre station would be at Curzon Street; and there would be interchange stations with Crossrail west of Paddington and near Birmingham Airport. HS2 Ltd’s recommended line of route between London and Birmingham is also published today; the Government endorses this route, subject to further work which I have commissioned on mitigation, and to subsequent public consultation. HS2 Ltd’s recommended route would pass in tunnel from Euston to the Crossrail Interchange west of Paddington. It would leave London via the Ruislip area, making use of an existing rail corridor. It would then pass by Amersham in tunnel towards Aylesbury, before following the route of the A413 past Wendover.
North of the Chilterns, the recommended route would follow in part the disused Great Central rail alignment before passing Brackley and entering Warwickshire. It would then skirt to the east of Birmingham, to enter the city via a short link, alongside an existing rail line, beginning in the Water Orton area, with the main line extending north to the West Coast Main Line near Lichfield.
In developing its route, HS2 Ltd has been very conscious of the need to minimise the local impacts while achieving the wider objectives of the high speed line. The company will be publishing a full Appraisal of Sustainability, including noise and landscape impacts, before formal consultation begins, and I am today publishing details of a proposed Exceptional Hardship Scheme for those whose properties may be directly affected. I would like to assure the House that only once full public consultation on the Government’s proposed strategy and recommended route is complete, and its results fully appraised, will the Government make firm decisions.
I turn now to the issue of Heathrow.
It is important that Heathrow is connected to any high speed line. A prime purpose of the proposed Crossrail Interchange is to provide such a connection, via an 11 minute direct service to Heathrow. However, the overwhelming majority of passengers on a high speed line south of Birmingham would be going to or from London. This is the other reason why the Crossrail Interchange station is so important. Crossrail, a very high capacity line, will provide fast services direct to the West End, the City and Docklands, catering for an estimated one third of all the passengers travelling on the high speed line. Without this Interchange to Crossrail, congestion on the tube from Euston would be exacerbated, and passengers would be severely disadvantaged in getting in and through central London.
The question is whether there is a case for an additional station at the site of Heathrow itself. HS2 Ltd, after thorough analysis, advise that the business case for such an additional station appears weak, given the estimated cost of at least £2 billion for the additional tunnelling required to serve the site. Furthermore, Heathrow is not a single place; it is an airport with three widely dispersed terminal centres.
However, I am conscious that, as foreshadowed in the Government’s January 2009 decision on adding capacity at Heathrow, there may be a strategic case for a high speed station at Heathrow, particularly in the light of that planned expansion. I have therefore appointed Lord Mawhinney, a former Transport Secretary, to advise on the best way forward, having fully engaged with all interested parties. A complex decision of this nature should not be taken in a knee-jerk fashion, but after a full analysis of the facts and options.
There are many other benefits of a high speed project. An estimated 10,000 jobs would be created, with benefits too for UK companies competing abroad. Regional economic growth and regeneration would also be boosted, with released capacity on the West Coast Main Line supporting housing growth. All this is set out in the Command Paper I am publishing today and laying in the libraries of both Houses.
My Lords, high speed rail is a long term strategic project to equip Britain with the transport infrastructure it needs to flourish in the 21st Century. Now, as we emerge from recession, is the right time to be planning. The Government’s view is that high speed rail could play a crucial role not only in meeting reasonable future transport capacity requirements, but also in transforming the connectivity between our major cities, regions and economic centres. It could help boost the economies of the Midlands and North in particular; help overcome the historic north-south divide; strengthen the ties that bind Scotland and England; and, connecting to the Channel Tunnel and High Speed One, reinforce our links with the European mainland where high speed rail networks already extend from the north of France to the south of Spain and Italy and to the east of Germany.
High speed rail is a policy of huge strategic significance for the country. The time has come to create a credible plan, and for this to be a national cause.
This is the spirit in which I set out today’s proposals, and I commend them to the House.