UK Ultraspeed warmly welcomes the publication by the respected think-tank IPPR of their report into transport links to and between the cities of the English North, noting their explicit
“recommendation […] that a detailed appraisal is undertaken of the relative costs and benefits of the case for the three options for upgrading North-South rail links, and the options for links within the North – conventional upgrades versus high speed rail versus Maglev.
The evaluation should use an upgraded NATA framework enhanced to take account of environmental and distributional costs and benefits, and should consider costs and benefits up to a time horizon of at least 60 years, in line with current appraisal guidance.
It is important that the same evaluation criteria are used across the three options to create a level playing field. A number of HSR/Maglev options could be considered within the basic framework to ‘fine-tune’ the evaluation.
The Government should then invest as necessary in the option with the highest benefit-to-cost ratio. This may require additional government borrowing – which would, however, be justifiable under the Treasury’s ‘Golden Rule’ for public spending, which allows borrowing to invest (up to the 40 per cent debt-to-GDP ratio specified by the Sustainable Investment Rule). Alternatively, a private financing package along the lines of the Private Finance Initiative, which is used extensively for investment in hospitals and other public sector capital projects, could be considered.
UK Ultraspeed further welcome the coverage of this report by the Newcastle Journal under the headline: Ministers urged to look at maglev and quoted Ultraspeed CEO Alan James as saying “We warmly welcome IPPR’s conclusion that a radical upgrade of connectivity to and between the cities of the English North is an absolute requirement.”
Whilst there is much to commend in the IPPR paper, UK Ultraspeed wishes to correct two key errors it contains.
-
Firstly, the IPPR estimate of costs for a “UK Maglev network to be in the region of £100 billion” is simply wrong, and wrong by an order of magnitude. Studies of the most difficult section of the 500 km/h Ultraspeed route (across the Pennines) have recently confirmed the capital cost, including land to average £35 million per km. This compares exceptionally favourably with the £56.42m per km out-turn cost for Britain’s only TGV-style railway, the much slower 300 km/h link from London to the Channel Tunnel.
-
Secondly the IPPR report is also mistaken in its statement (p41) that maglev would have an “even longer” construction time than high speed rail. This is not true. The Transrapid maglev system used by Transrapid is capable of rapid, largely pre-fabricated construction. The Chinese stage one maglev route was built in 22 months from signature of contract to VIP opening run – a record-breaking achievement for a major infrastructure project.