HS2 has attracted substantial criticism across several dimensions
The project's budget has ballooned dramatically, from an initial estimate of about £33 billion to figures now exceeding £100 billion. Critics argue the cost per kilometre is among the highest in the world, and that the money could deliver far greater benefit if spent on improving existing regional railways or other public services.
The northern legs, to Leeds and the original Manchester route, were cancelled or severely curtailed, which many argue guts the core rationale. HS2 was sold as a spine connecting London, the Midlands, and the North. Without that, critics say it becomes little more than a faster commuter line into London.
Supporters framed HS2 primarily as a capacity project, freeing up the existing West Coast Main Line for freight and regional services. Critics counter that demand forecasts were inflated, that post-pandemic working patterns have reduced peak commuting, and that the speed benefits largely serve business travellers rather than ordinary passengers.
The route through the Chilterns and other areas required felling ancient woodlands and disrupting wildlife habitats. Environmental groups argued the ecological harm was poorly justified, and that the promised green credentials of high-speed rail were overstated given the carbon cost of construction.
Multiple parliamentary and National Audit Office reports have criticised poor cost control, optimism bias in early estimates, weak oversight, and a governance structure that made it difficult to challenge escalating costs early enough.
Ironically, while HS2 was partly justified as a tool for ‘levelling up,’ critics argue that the truncated version primarily benefits London and Birmingham, with northern cities like Manchester and Leeds receiving a worse deal than originally promised, potentially widening rather than narrowing the divide.
Perhaps the broadest criticism is that the tens of billions committed to HS2 could have upgraded hundreds of local and regional lines, improved bus connectivity, or addressed the maintenance backlog on the existing network, thus delivering wider benefits to more people.
The project was devised at a time when travel time was regarded as time wasted, so shorter travel times were expected to increase productivity. The advent of wi-fi and laptops means that travel time is no longer wasted. And the spread of working from home means that shorter commutes no longer have the advantage they were expected to bring.
The project remains politically contentious, with defenders arguing a modern high-capacity spine is essential infrastructure for the coming decades, while critics see it as a costly prestige project that has been badly managed from the start.
The question arises as to whether rail nationalizations will bring better management and cost controls to the industry.
Madsen Pirie