Ronnie Cohen comments on the way the UK Department for Transport (DfT) struggles to maintain a consistent approach to spending.
I recently asked the DfT how much money will be diverted from high priority areas and a breakdown of high priority areas where money will be taken from to pay for HS2. Let me start by explaining what HS2 is. High Speed 2 (HS2) is the proposed high-speed rail link from London to northern England via Birmingham. A budget of £55.7 billion has been allocated for this project, which was agreed at the Spending Review in 2015. Royal Assent was granted to the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 on 23 February 2017. This Act of Parliament paves the way to begin construction of Phase 1 of HS2 from London to Birmingham.
I received a reply to my FOI request from a member of the High Speed Rail Team, who told me that “HS2 is not being delivered at the cost to other areas of transport”. Compare that to the estimated cost of £680 – 760 million for converting around half a million road signs in 2006. The cost of conversion would still be less than 2% of the cost of HS2 even at the upper end of the DfT’s grossly inflated cost estimates for converting around half a million road signs. After allowing for total inflation of 26% since 2006, the estimated £760 million would be approximately £960 million today. Plenty of evidence has been provided in previous Metric Views article that the DfT estimates are grossly inflated and lack credibility, which will not be repeated here.
But let’s suppose for the sake of argument that it will cost £1 billion to metricate all official road signs and road markings. This is still less than 2% of the total estimated cost of building HS2. While the DfT denies that any funds will be diverted from other areas of transport to build HS2, the DfT has spent many years claiming that metrication of road transport would divert funds from high priority areas. The typical responses of the DfT to calls for the metrication of road signs include, “We do not consider that diverting funding from high priority areas for the metrication of traffic signs is justified.” and “Our position is that we do not consider diverting funding from priority areas to the metrication of road traffic signs is justified.”. How can the DfT claim that a project costing £56 billion does not require any funds to be diverted from other areas of transport but a project that costs, by their inflated estimate, less than £1 billion requires funds to be diverted from other areas of transport? Apparently, the government can find any amount of money when it is committed to a project. Yet for one that makes sense but might prove unpopular it insists this must be paid for by diverting funding from other areas of transport.