HS2 - the dissenting report

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From The BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

There is "overwhelming evidence" that the costs of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) are "out of control" and its benefits overstated, the deputy chair of its review panel has said.

Lord Berkeley said the high-speed rail line, linking London and northern England, is likely to cost over £108bn.

A vocal critic of HS2, the Labour peer said he believed MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament, or Mile Post - a method of measuring the railway in miles and chains from a starting point - usually London, depending on context) had been "misled" about the price - set at £55bn in 2015.

He has published a "dissenting report" on the project, but the government said it represented his personal view.

Trains are due to start running on HS2 between London and Birmingham in 2029.

However, Lord Berkeley says there is little prospect of that before 2031, and warns high speed trains will not reach Manchester and Leeds until 2040.

[infoman]

Interview with Lord Berkeley will be on Sky news at 08:30am on Sunday morning.

[TonyK]

Darn - missed it. Never mind.

[TaplowGreen]

Confirmed what most people suspect....out of control.

https://news.sky.com/story/hs2-costs-are-out-of-control-and-could-spiral-to-107bn-lord-warns-11901105

[Red Squirrel]

Confirmed what most people suspect....out of control.

Or to put it another way: repeated what he always says.

Do most people suspect this project is out of control?

[TaplowGreen]

Confirmed what most people suspect....out of control.

Or to put it another way: repeated what he always says.

Do most people suspect this project is out of control?

Most people (outside of the railway bubble) who are used to having to observe the discipline of on time/within budget are utterly incredulous about the spiralling cost of this project, and I think it's reasonable to say that to go from £55bn to £88bn to well over £100bn suggests that it's out of control - these are colossal amounts of money.

I appreciate that massive overruns/overspends are par for the course in the rail industry (I give you Crossrail as just one other example amongst many), however we don't all have the luxury of shrugging our shoulders over such issues, and/or shooting inconvenient messengers by default.

[Red Squirrel]

Most people (outside of the railway bubble) who are used to having to observe the discipline of on time/within budget...

Well that's tightened the definition of 'most people' to exclude... er, well, in fact that's probably excluded most people.

...we don't all have the luxury of shrugging our shoulders over such issues, and/or shooting inconvenient messengers by default.

Tony Berkeley is long-standing critic of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). If he'd suddenly changed his mind and backed HS2, that would be news. This isn't.

[TaplowGreen]

Most people (outside of the railway bubble) who are used to having to observe the discipline of on time/within budget...

Well that's tightened the definition of 'most people' to exclude... er, well, in fact that's probably excluded most people.

...we don't all have the luxury of shrugging our shoulders over such issues, and/or shooting inconvenient messengers by default.

Tony Berkeley is long-standing critic of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). If he'd suddenly changed his mind and backed HS2, that would be news. This isn't.

Well that's selective quoting for you.

I fully appreciate and respect that you regard HS2 as a sacred cow, irrespective of cost, and that anyone expressing an opinion which challenges this is by default regarded as a heretic.

It's entirely possible of course that you are better informed than the likes of Tony Berkeley, and if so, and the project comes in on budget and on time, I will be the first to acknowledge it - I'm sure you will be gracious enough to do the same should the alternative scenario materialise?

I'd be interested in your rebuttal of the findings of Lord Berkeley's report - it's been widely publicised today.

[Red Squirrel]

Well that's selective quoting for you.

Indeed.

I fully appreciate and respect that you regard HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) as a sacred cow, irrespective of cost, and that anyone expressing an opinion which challenges this is by default regarded as a heretic.

There are a number of aspects of this project which appear problematic, not least of which being that (according to some) possibly 30% of the cost is accounted for by over-engineering to reduce risk.

It's entirely possible of course that you are better informed than the likes of Tony Berkeley, and if so, and the project comes in on budget and on time, I will be the first to acknowledge it - I'm sure you will be gracious enough to do the same should the alternative scenario materialise?

It'll be astonishing if this project comes in on time or on budget. Big infrastructure projects don't tend to, leastwise not when the British Government have any involvement in the spec.

I'd be interested in your rebuttal of the findings of Lord Berkeley's report - it's been widely publicised today.

Publicised, but not published as far as I can see.

Interesting that even Tony Berkeley acknowledges a BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) of 0.6 for the project (source: Stop HS2). BCR calculations have a habit of being rather conservative.

[TaplowGreen]

Well that's selective quoting for you.

Indeed.

I fully appreciate and respect that you regard HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) as a sacred cow, irrespective of cost, and that anyone expressing an opinion which challenges this is by default regarded as a heretic.

There are a number of aspects of this project which appear problematic, not least of which being that (according to some) possibly 30% of the cost is accounted for by over-engineering to reduce risk.

It's entirely possible of course that you are better informed than the likes of Tony Berkeley, and if so, and the project comes in on budget and on time, I will be the first to acknowledge it - I'm sure you will be gracious enough to do the same should the alternative scenario materialise?

It'll be astonishing if this project comes in on time or on budget. Big infrastructure projects don't tend to, leastwise not when the British Government have any involvement in the spec.

I'd be interested in your rebuttal of the findings of Lord Berkeley's report - it's been widely publicised today.

Publicised, but not published as far as I can see.

Interesting that even Tony Berkeley acknowledges a BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) of 0.6 for the project (source: Stop HS2). BCR calculations have a habit of being rather conservative.

So you're dismissing Lord Berkeley's report as "what he always says" without having read it.

He discussed much of it in the Telegraph today with a lot of analysis. Interesting that you cite a BCR of 0.6:1, which represents "poor value for money" by the Treasury definition.

Somewhat different to the figure of 2.3:1 quoted by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) in seeking approval for the project.

£33bn to £107bn in 10 years, completion drifted by 7 years already. Yep, all under control.  🙄

[Marlburian]

Today's Sunday Times has an article quoting Lord Berkeley as claiming that the report has exaggerated HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))'s benefits by assuming 18 trains an hour will run, "a feat not managed by any high-speed service in the world".

Apparently the report has revised down the financial benefits, once claimed to be £2.30 for every pound spent, to between £1.30 and £1.50.

I was a bit surprised that the review chairman, Douglas Oakervee, was once chairman of HS2. Perhaps a less-impartial chair would have been preferable, though I suppose it could be said that Berkeley provided a counterbalance.

I recall David Cameron, when launching HS2, being asked about the risk of the scheme going over-budget and his poo-pooing the notion - which prompted me to laugh derisively.

Marlburian

[IndustryInsider]

Most people (outside of the railway bubble) who are used to having to observe the discipline of on time/within budget are utterly incredulous about the spiralling cost of this project...

I posted a similar link a while ago that demonstrated the railway industry is no different to other industries in terms of big infrastructure projects and the chances of cost and delay implications to them.  Nine out of ten do worldwide.  But this article makes interesting reading:

http://cdn.roxhillmedia.com/production/email/attachment/730001_740000/ICE%20Report%20-%20Reducing%20the%20gap%20between%20cost%20estimates%20and%20outturns%20for%20major%20infrastructure%20projects%20and%20programmes.pdf

[Red Squirrel]

To quote the report II refers to:

The infrastructure which enabled the London 2012 games is considered a crowning success. A Comres poll for the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) a year after the event found that “two-thirds of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) public believe that the £8.77bn cost of the London 2012 Olympics was worth the money, with 74% saying they would welcome the Games back.”

The initial cost estimate for the Olympics was £2.37 billion.

[Red Squirrel]

Here is Tony Berkeley's report:

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A8e9c8f87-2650-4aa0-8e0f-0eaf6e709640

[didcotdean]

To quote the report II refers to:

The infrastructure which enabled the London 2012 games is considered a crowning success. A Comres poll for the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) a year after the event found that “two-thirds of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) public believe that the £8.77bn cost of the London 2012 Olympics was worth the money, with 74% saying they would welcome the Games back.”

The initial cost estimate for the Olympics was £2.37 billion.

The initial cost didn't envelope the general regeneration of the Lee Valley and infrastructure elements, and didn't include the tax (mainly VAT^▸ (Value Added Tax)) that the Olympic Delivery Authority would need to pay which would come back to the government anyway. What had been really undercooked in the original estimate were the security costs.

What was also included was a sizeable £2.7Bn of contingency which in the end wasn't quite all used up but not that far off.