A thorough reassessment of the Government’s Integrated Rail Plan
is essential to ensure this once-in-a-generation investment in
rail is not a missed opportunity to address regional imbalances,
urges the Transport Committee.
Today’s report, The Integrated Rail Plan for the North and
Midlands says that alternative options, which could transform
stations and city centres in key Northern cities, have not been
properly tested. Leaving out key elements of analysis of the
wider economic impacts of the different options set out for
Northern Powerhouse Rail means that value for money and economic
return cannot be compared and validated, says the report.
The Committee calls for a full analysis of the wider economic
impacts, and a full benefit-cost ratio, for the different
Northern Powerhouse Rail options. If the results demonstrate that
other options offer better value and outcomes for the taxpayer,
economy and the communities directly impacted, MPs say Government
‘must grasp the nettle’ and make the necessary changes.
The revised Eastern leg of HS2 Phase 2b will see the Birmingham
to Leeds route terminate at East Midlands Parkway. HS2 Limited
was unable to tell the Committee how much the revised leg would
cost. As a result, the Committee calls on the Department for
Transport to publish an updated benefit-cost ratio for the entire
HS2 project, including a direct comparison between the original
and revised Eastern leg of HS2 Phase 2b, by March 2023.
The original purpose of Northern Powerhouse Rail - to connect the
‘great cities of the north to build a northern powerhouse’ – is
at risk. Some towns and cities have already been disappointed by
decisions, says the report, which looks at the implications for
Leeds and Bradford in particular. Work is urgently needed to
demonstrate the Government’s commitment to high-speed connections
to Leeds. MPs also ask Government to commit to supporting the
redevelopment of the city’s station by 2035.
The Committee is concerned that the case for the IRP is based on
a best-case scenario which ‘may not come to pass.’ The promised
journey times may not be feasible and the issue of how to
increase track capacity, including for local services and
freight, has been overlooked.
The Chair of the Transport Committee, , said:
“We welcome the scale of the Government’s promised spending on
rail. At £96 billion, the Government has billed it ‘the largest
single rail investment ever made by a UK Government’. The
Committee agrees it has the potential to transform rail travel
for future generations.
“However, many towns and cities are already disappointed by the
proposals which have been set out. The Prime Minister promised
that he would, with Northern Powerhouse Rail, do for the North
what he did for Londoners with Crossrail. Instead, much of the
track will be an upgrade of existing line. The business case of
HS2 was based on it going east to Leeds. Now, it stops in the
East Midlands without any understanding of how much money is
saved. Those we spoke to from the cities of Leeds and Bradford,
in particular, do not recognise that the finalised plans meet
either the promises they believe were made or the Prime
Minister’s stated aims.
“For these cities, and the taxpayer as a whole, the Government
must demonstrate the rationale for its decisions. An investment
of this substantial sum must be based on the best evidence and
the best value for money. It must bring the greatest
overall benefit to rail services, the economy, environment and
communities across the North and Midlands.
“We ask Government to revisit the evidence base for the decisions
they have reached. In recommending this reassessment, we are
mindful of a previous Transport Committee report which challenged
the Government on its ability to deliver major infrastructure
projects. Ministers must be cautious but transparent about the
benefits that can be delivered by the Integrated Rail Plan. It is
ambitious and exciting but public and stakeholders, especially in
the North and Midlands, must be able to see that the benefits of
the current proposals outweigh the other options which have been
put forward.”
