Lord Berkeley: An alternative Integrated Rail Plan – 4th March 2022
|
To deliver the regional services that the North and Midlands want
rather than just getting to London more quickly! A concentration on
smaller regional projects with the emphasis on electrification and
capacity can deliver more benefits more quickly than HS2 and many
of its projects included in the IRP – for the same estimated costs
of just over £90bn. A list of these alternative projects and their
estimated capital costs by Michael Byng is set out below.
They...Request free trial
A concentration on smaller regional projects with the emphasis on electrification and capacity can deliver more benefits more quickly than HS2 and many of its projects included in the IRP – for the same estimated costs of just over £90bn. A list of these alternative projects and their estimated capital costs by Michael Byng is set out below. They were selected on the same basis as the IRP claims – but does not deliver:
the projects are listed in two parts:
The IRP is unstructured, and still concentrates on London. But there is no money within the £96bn budget for IRP due to the emerging, ever increasing Estimated Final Cost of the HS2 Project (Phases 1, 2A, 2B (Crewe to Manchester) and West to East Midlands of £125.52bn which leaves nothing for other IRP projects. Due to the undue concentration of money and resources on the HS2 Project, the IRP contains little or nothing of substance to improve passenger connectivity in the Midlands and the North. The IRP contains no measures to improve freight connectivity. The absence in the IRP of projects with confirmed funding to develop strong electrified railways and increased capacity around our regional hubs, confirms that the IRP does not assist the levelling up process around the country. The rail schemes in the IRP are neither integrated with HS2 nor do they interact with HS2. The IRP selection methodology appears to be driven by commitment to the vanity HS2 Project, which benefits London primarily, with only passing regard to the needs of the North and the Midlands. The IRP represents extremely poor value for money, reflecting the problems found by “The Oakervee Review” to justify a positive business case for the HS2 Project, which is at the centre of the IRP. The future reduction in demand for long distance rail services post Covid-19 will further reduce the business case. Alternative Rail Schemes - Summary of Costs The summary of the costs of alternative schemes to those described in the IRP is shown in the table below (source Michael Byng):-
Lord Berkeley comments: ‘These conclusions, which I fully endorse, indicate a continuing failure of ministers to understand the rail needs of the North and Midlands, where the priorities are to improve the local economies by better local services, electrification and capacity enhancements for passenger and freight services, rather than getting to London quicker. ‘We offer these alternatives as a means of delivering what the Government says it wants in the IRP but which it does not deliver. These alternatives will cost just over £90bn compared to the £96bn in the IRP but to remain within this figure most of HS2 must be ‘repurposed’ to meet the IRP criteria.’ Refer to The Integrated Rail Plan, CP 490, published 14th November 2021 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||