Proposed alternatives to HS2 will not solve railway capacity problems, say MPs

In a report (28-page / 1.5MB PDF), the result of a four-month inquiry, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) said that "piecemeal" upgrades to the existing network would not be sufficient to meet increasing demand. The railways are continuing to see substantial growth at over 5% per year despite the recession, the report said.

"The findings of our inquiry completely blow the arguments of the opponents of HS2 out of the water," said Graham Stringer, co-chair of the APPG. "Claims that we can create sufficient capacity on the railways by implementing piecemeal upgrades of the existing lines have been proved wrong. All of the available evidence makes it clear that the very running of our railways is under threat as we fast approach total saturation on some of the major trunk lines. We are already seeing passenger numbers that were projected for a decade's time."

The Department for Transport announced its plans to proceed with the line, dubbed High Speed 2 or 'HS2', in January. The initial London to Birmingham phase of the 250 miles per hour line, which is scheduled for completion in 2026, will cut journey times between the two cities to 45 minutes. The proposed second phase of the project envisages the construction of an onward 'y network' connecting the line to Manchester and Leeds, as well as a spur to Heathrow Airport, by 2033. A formal consultation on the route for this second phase will begin in early 2014, the Government has said.

The plans have been criticised by local authorities, residents and campaigners who have stated they are "poor value for money" and will damage the environment. Several campaigning organisations, including those with interests in alternative schemes, lodged applications to bring judicial review proceedings against the Government last month to prevent the project from going ahead.

The report considered alternative packages including Rail Package 2, which would see 12 trains per hour run on the line throughout the day, and the "optimised alternative" of incremental upgrades to the West Coast Main Line championed by the '51m' group of local authorities. The APPG concluded that although it was "possible" that either plan would meet demand for intercity travel, local and freight services would most likely need to be sacrificed to "ensure passengers were not crowded off" the expanded trains.

Infrastructure law expert Patrick Twist of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said that the inquiry was always likely to conclude that the "patch and mend" solutions proposed by the scheme's opponents were not viable alternatives.

"Capacity has always been the principal argument in favour of HS2," he said. "This government and its predecessor have been bold in adopting a solution that will provide for the 21st century. The scheme's opponents will undoubtedly continue to seek to delay and obstruct the development but the Government shows no sign of wavering in its commitment."

Penny Gaines, chair of anti-HS2 campaigning organisation Stop HS2, criticised the report, saying that its writers had "compared a very limited number of alternatives".

"They – and the Department for Transport when developing HS2 – are completely oblivious to the growth in telepresence videoconferencing, which is leading to a fall in the total number of long distance journeys over all modes of transport," she said.

Legislation that will enable construction on the project to begin is due to be introduced at the end of next year.