After weeks of speculation, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak finally confirmed plans to scrap the northern phase of HS2 earlier this week. Speaking at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, he cited the escalating costs of the project, which had far exceeded initial estimates, as the primary reason for this decision.
“I say to those who backed the project in the first place, the facts have changed. The right thing to do when the facts change is to have the courage to change direction,” Sunak said.
The cancelled northern extension, which was intended to connect Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds, represented a vital link in the envisioned high-speed rail network.
This move has been met with mixed reactions, with critics expressing concerns about the potential long-term impact on the UK's connectivity, economic growth, and efforts to bridge regional disparities.
“The cancellation of HS2 Phase 2 is a devastating blow to our industry and our whole economy," said the High Speed Rail Group (HSRG), which represents 21 organisations, including the Railway Industry Association, Siemens Mobility, High Speed 1, and Thales GTS UK.
The cancellation marks a significant change in direction after years of planning and investment by companies and professionals across the rail sector. "For 15 years we have worked with the government to develop this project – their project – taking it from a concept to construction,” said HSRG.
“Companies have invested in people, skills and equipment on the back of it, with some even relocating in anticipation of it being completed," continued HSRG. The cancellation, according to the organisation, is "the biggest and most damaging U-turn in the history of UK infrastructure."
Rain Newton-Smith, Chief Executive of CBI, further argued that cancelling its HS2 will have repercussions for the UK’s status on the world stage and its ability to keep up with competitors.
“The decision to cancel the rest of the HS2 project sends a damaging signal about the UK’s status as a global destination for investment,” Newton-Smith said.
What went wrong?
Critics have pointed to mismanagement as playing a significant role in the failure of the northern expansion. Julian Worth, a spokesperson from the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT), commented, "The problem with HS2 is not that it is the wrong project, but that its costs have been allowed to escalate out of control.
“Something has gone badly wrong with the management of HS2 and we consider that a key factor was the failure to appoint and retain seasoned professionals, with knowledge of how to specify, tender and control major rail schemes, to senior roles in the project.”
He noted that other countries have successfully managed the cost of major infrastructure projects and that HS1 was delivered on time and under budget. “The rest of the world is forging ahead with construction of high-speed rail lines as the preferred way of improving infrastructure and decarbonising long-distance transport.
“It does not seem plausible that the current UK Government is right to abandon high-speed rail and that everyone else has it wrong.”
What will replace the HS2 expansion?
In place of the northern HS2 extension, Rishi Sunak has pledged to “reinvest every single penny" saved from cancelling the remainder of HS2, which totals around £36 billion, into various rail and road schemes.
"Every region outside of London will receive the same or more government investment than they would have done under HS2, with quicker results.”
Among the promised investments were:
• Upgrades to the A1, A2, A5, and M6 roads
• Electrifying the North Wales mainline
• A new station at Bradford
• Expansion of the West Midlands metro
• Building a Leeds tram line
• Connecting 50 stations through the Midlands rail hub
“Businesses and investors in the Midlands and the North have spent the last decade planning for the delivery of HS2,” CBI said. “The commitment to invest in a new Network North programme of transport projects promises much-needed investment to the region.
“But a 'start from scratch' approach risks leaving those businesses in a holding pattern of poor connectivity and low productivity whilst those projects are scoped, prepped and finally delivered.”
In addition, as reported by the Guardian, many of these schemes were already announced or in development prior to Sunak’s announcement.
What are the implications for net zero?
Following Sunak’s recent decision to scale back the Government’s commitments to net zero, Sunak's plans to allocate resources to road schemes, despite the need to transition to more sustainable transport options, have also raised eyebrows.
"While reinvestment in other regional rail schemes is a significant consolation, the decision to reduce investment in rail and divert funds to road schemes feels counterintuitive as we look to attract people to move away from carbon-intensive modes of transport," commented Andy Bagnall, Chief Executive of Rail Partners.
Rail Partners claimed that the decision would limit how many freight trains could run, and would mean half a million more lorries on roads every year, significantly increasing carbon emissions at a time when they urgently need to be curbed.
“Net zero 2050 remains an imperative and Government must not weaken long-term commitments for short term-expediency,” added CILT. “Funding should not be diverted to high carbon road projects simply to satisfy the demands of a vocal minority.”
Rather than focusing on road projects, the organisation suggested that money that would have been spent on HS2 should instead be invested in “electrifying missing links in the core rail freight network, 60 percent of which is already electrified”.
According to CILT, “wiring 800 miles over the next 20 years, at a cost of less than £2bn, would allow c. 95 percent of rail freight to be electrically hauled with zero-carbon emissions.”
Long-term consequences
The cancellation of phase two of HS2 has also ignited a debate about the future of UK infrastructure development and called into question the Government's commitment to delivering long-term projects that drive economic growth and sustainability.
“The strategic benefits of linking up London, Birmingham and Manchester was not simply about passenger transport, but about creating substantial new capacity for the movement of goods and freight on today’s over-stretched network. Failing to invest for the future is something we are likely to regret in the longer term,” said Make UK.
“More importantly, the decision today sends a hugely disappointing message about our commitment to completing major infrastructure projects in the UK. For too long we have lagged behind our competitors in the investment we make in road, rail, ports, airport capacity and energy production and supply.
“If we are to make up that shortfall it is vital that the UK not only has a detailed, ambitious and funded Industrial Strategy, but that we commit to delivering these projects in full, and not giving up when the job is half finished. The signal that this sends to potential investors could not be clearer.”
The Institution of Civil Engineers' Director of Policy, Chris Richards, agreed: “The stop-start approach the country takes to major infrastructure benefits no one. We need long-term plans, supported by evidence, long-term thinking on financing options, and robust and consistent policy to achieve desired outcomes.”