Britain needs high-speed lines, not Victorian-era railways


By focusing on the perceived mismanagement of today's rail system, Simon Jenkins blinds himself to the opportunities presented by high-speed rail (High-speed rail will bleed us all for a few rich travellers, 6 January).

History proves that connectivity drives economic prosperity. Yes, gargantuan projects "cost a lifetime of money", while privatisation and over-regulation have left railways "wildly expensive to build and run". The danger is that the difficulty of moving around our congested little island may push us into a spiral of economic decline.

"Upgrading the existing track, eliminating bottlenecks and improving reliability" is not a better option. Consider the west coast mainline upgrade. Its eventual cost of almost £9bn dwarfs its benefits. The Department for Transport agrees, stating in a 2007 report: "The disadvantages of undertaking major new construction work alongside a working railway outweigh the advantages."

This argument was central to my company Arup's successful lobbying of government in the early 1990s, resulting in the selection of our route for the Channel tunnel rail link. Building a new railway is actually cheaper and less disruptive than fiddling with the existing network – though it requires an un-British, strategic view of national spatial and economic planning.

France exemplifies the potential success. Despite labour market inflexibility, hourly productivity in France stands at $54, compared to $45 in the UK, which is recognised as largely due to its excellent infrastructure. Do we really want, as Jenkins suggests, an economy reliant on Victorian railways – often built on the cheap? He calls Crossrail a "disaster that would eat money, time and effort". This remains to be seen, but it cannot be compared with high-speed rail. Arup and partners delivered the Channel tunnel link on time and within budget.

Jenkins demands "independent rather than interest-dominated analysis". The British Chambers of Commerce and CBI unanimously back the idea of a national high-speed network; and elected bodies nationally are now ­adding their support.

And if Jenkins believes the "comparison of high-speed trains to competitive air travel is fantasy", he should visit Spain, where travel between Madrid and Barcelona has been transformed. Within a year, as your website reported, trains stole 46% of the market from "fuel-­guzzling, carbon-emitting aircraft".

If Britain does not have "the long distances and dispersed destinations of France or Spain", we should tell the Glaswegians. A trip from their home city to London is a comparable distance to Paris to Marseille.

And "cars, coaches and jets are today's low cost, mass market transport"? Perhaps – but the reality of worsening road congestion and accelerating climate change will force us to change.

The biggest danger to delivering the high-speed network is not funding but cynicism. We need confidence to get this major investment right, giving the next generation the benefit of a rail ­network we do not currently enjoy.