On track to economic recovery

It is a project that will destroy swathes of pristine English countryside, its noise will blight homes and its construction will force some people to move from houses they have lived in for years. It will cost billions of pounds and will probably run on nuclear-generated energy. Moreover, it may negatively affect the current service available in the UK. Yet, as I shall argue here, high-speed rail is a necessity, even for nearby Kenilworth, for a variety of reasons.

The key issue at stake is the proposed routing of the High Speed 2 line (HS2) between London and Birmingham, utilising a corridor through the Chiltern Hills, bypassing Kenilworth and the Warwick University campus along the Kenilworth Greenway cycle path. Locals in the town have organised into the “Stop HS2 Kenilworth Action Group” by arguing largely on the above lines against the project. However, I believe that despite the line not actually serving the town, it is still important that it be constructed.

It appears that the Kenilworth action group are strongly motivated by Not-In-My-Backyardism (NIMBYism). Those affected by the risk of losing their homes of course have a right to complain about the project. However, the other objections are flawed when seen within the national picture.

Perhaps ironically, the current political mantra of ‘we’re all in this together’ is vital in justifying the line. This is simply because HS2 will create jobs. It is a brilliant example of Keynesianism state investment in the economy, and will likely do much to help maintain a skilled and productive workforce in the construction sector, right across the country, and with that will provide a truly national boost. Moreover, construction is timed to commence at the completion of the Crossrail in London, thus allowing for the cascading of many skilled workers from one similar project to another.

Admittedly, the cost of the project will have its detractors, but again its importance in its eventual connection of London with Edinburgh and Glasgow at high speed is a strong justification. The economic value of the fully-completed line (and not simply the Birmingham-London portion) is high, with the Department for Transport arguing it will have a 2.7:1 cost-benefit ratio. Moreover, the very problem which motivates the Kenilworth campaign – that the line is proposed to re-use the Greenway, previously used as a line until the Beeching Axe in the 1960s – is caused by a desire to save money: it exists today because it was mothballed in case of future use as a route to Birmingham. The HS2 planners have made a wise money-saving choice in routing the line across this old corridor instead of cutting through more of the pristine Warwickshire countryside. For those who object to the loss of the Greenway, whilst well-used by local people, the cost of providing an alternative cycling path will be far cheaper than building new rail lines over previously unused fields.

Nevertheless, that some of the internationally-recognised beauty of Warwickshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire will be destroyed is true. However, this point can be rebutted by two approaches: the first, again, economic. Scottish Labour MP Willie Bains made this point clear at a recent debate on the project, with words to the effect that demand for the line in Scotland is extraordinarily high, and that in order to reach London, it must therefore pass through the countryside. Understandably, those living near the line will raise objections, and the Kenilworth group have argued that the line will be louder than the A46 (the road that the U1 bus takes to campus from Leamington).

However, this position can be rebutted with my second point: despite the recession, use of the railways is at an all-time high. There has been a huge increase in the growth of freight, on road and railways, and the easiest way to make room for this in the most environmental way is to build a new rail line, not a road. Simply put, by objecting to a railway line, those in the Kenilworth Action Group have only the alternative of a new motorway (which, incidentally, would have to cut through Warwickshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire anyway) to carry all of these goods. Whilst this would allow residents of Kenilworth themselves to make use of it, unlike HS2, it is obvious that such a building project would be even more disastrous for the countryside and the climate.

Thus, whilst those who may lose their homes can justifiably object, those who simply portray HS2 as a waste of time and resources are wrong, for it will have broad social and economic benefits both during and after construction, and arguably will help our economy recover through quickly connecting the major wealth-generating cities while at the same time helping the environment by avoiding new roads.