Another day, another report on the HS2
project, with the assembled punditry piling in behind to spin it for their
particular interest. This time, it is KPMG doing the reporting, and asserting
that HS2 will bring benefits such as more economic growth, and the ability for
workers and managers to get around more easily. The report, to give the
appropriate health warning, was
commissioned by HS2 Limited.
May look something like this. Perhaps
So far, so straightforward, but now there has been a further
intervention by the BBC’s uniquely spoken Business Editor Robert Peston, who
has titled his piece “What KPMG ignored when
arguing for HS2”. But what he is arguing about was not really ignored:
the KPMG study did not go into the detail at a fine enough level, and so an
assumption was made, and spelt out.
Here it is: “The
methodology employed makes the implicit assumption that transport connectivity
is the only supply-side constraint to business location. In practice, there
could be other constraints that could inhibit the potential location effects,
such as the availability of skilled labour and land in a given location”.
Fair enough, and most of the locations on the HS2 map should have land and
labour available.
Peston takes exception to this: “it has taken no account of whether those regions actually contain
available land to site new or bigger companies or have people with relevant
skills to employ ... which, some would say, is a flaw the size of Greater
Manchester in its analysis”. Bloody hell Pesto, and I thought that the
right-leaning press and lobby groups were over-dramatic.
In any case, Peston “ignored”
the same thing as he accuses KPMG of ignoring: he makes a general assertion
about land and labour, which he fails to stand up. My impression – not that I’m
“ignoring” this, you understand – is that
both are not a problem in the East and West Midlands, the North West and North
East. Bentley and Jaguar Land Rover aren’t having any problems recruiting.
So I can only conclude that Peston is chasing a red herring,
and, moreover, really is ignoring
something, and that something is, once again, the C-Word. Yes, Capacity: the underlying reason for
HS2, as it was for the first LGV and AVE. And once again I make no apologies
for wheeling out the Rail Freight Group’s (RFG) forecast for the excess of
demand over capacity come 2030.
And that is just freight
demand: what the case may be by that time with passenger demand is not known
(the RFG assumes no change to the number of passenger trains). If that freight,
and any excess of passenger demand, is not satisfied by the railways, it will
inevitably go by road. So is Peston in favour of a few hundred kilometres’ more
new Motorway construction? How would he square the circle?
This is a question nobody should be allowed to duck. And especially not the BBC.
2 comments:
I don't mind scrutiny of government figures, whether or not I support the scheme. I just wish someone at the BBC would give the same level of scrutiny to Richard Wellings's £80bn claim.
Okay, they might not be able to run the story for more than one paragraph before the only possible summaryis something to the effect of "it's bollocks, isn't it?", but that's what Mr. Wellings should expect when he talks bollocks.
Here is a detailed review of the flaws in KPMG's report from Prof Overman who is still listed as being on HS2's challenge panel (but is no longer on it).
I think you owe Mr Peston an apology.
http://spatial-economics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/hs2-regional-economic-impact-garbage-in.html
Post a Comment