HS2 briefly

From HS2.org.uk, "HS2 will create around 25,000 jobs and fuel economic benefits worth over £103 billion to the UK.” The claimed cost is £55billion, and this implies a benefit cost ratio of 1.87.

If it’s a good idea, but sadly doesn’t involve enough direct recoupable benefits for entirely private funding, then external benefits should still be extremely easy to find. A BCR of 1.87 that is also flimsy doesn’t look good. I assume the BCR doesn’t account for the fact that raising the tax to pay for it will do damage - the tax wedge. I think a fair BCR which takes into account the tax wedge would show that the project will make us poorer.

Regarding the jobs created, at 55 billion / 25,000 = £2.2M per job, I’d make a pure guess that that £2.2M of tax is at least one private sector job prevented or destroyed, again due to the cost of the tax. Furthermore, regarding the north/south divide, which half suffers more when there's extra tax? My money would be on the north.

The only convincing reason for HS2 seems to be that it would inevitably release greenbelt land for housing. But I can’t bring myself to think spending fifty billion plus for a side effect is sensible. The boring answer for the north/south divide seems to be decentralisation with tax-cutting powers, and building many many more houses. Evidence from around the world seems to suggest that high speed rail links are not the answer to regional imbalances.

With all three main parties in favour at the last election, you could say the electorate never had much of a choice.

I can see why governments pursue bad popular ideas (votes), and unpopular good ones (lack of choice usually, dressed up as good leadership), but I can't fathom why an unpopular bad idea has progressed so far.