HS2 Inqury terms of reference

 Transport Committee

Select Committee Announcement

Friday 18 March 2011:                                           SCA51 /2010–11

For immediate release 

NEW INQUIRY – HIGH SPEED RAIL

Terms of reference and call for evidence

The Transport Committee has decided to undertake an inquiry into the strategic case for High Speed Rail (the HSR programme). The Committee will focus on the principal arguments for and against High Speed Rail.

The Committee is not intending to examine the precise specification of the HS2 route nor how the route would affect individual landowners, businesses and residents in the vicinity of the route. These issues would be dealt with in due course by a hybrid bill committee.

The issues which the Committee will examine, along with an indication of the questions it will pursue, are set out below:

1. What are the main arguments either for or against HSR.

2. How does HSR fit with the Government’s transport policy objectives

2.1     HSR is designed to improve inter-urban connectivity. How does that objective compare in importance to other transport policy objectives and spending programmes, including those for the strategic road network?

2.2     Focusing on rail, what would be the implications of expenditure on HSR on funding for the ‘classic’ network, for example in relation to investment to increase track and rolling stock capacity in and around major cities?

2.3     What are the implications for domestic aviation?

3. Business case 

 3.1     How robust are the assumptions and methodology – for example, on passenger forecasts, modal shifts, fare levels, scheme costs, economic assumptions (eg about the value of time) and the impact of lost revenue on the ‘classic’ network?

3.2     What would be the pros and cons of resolving capacity issues in other ways, for example by upgrading the West Coast Main Line or building a new conventional line? 

3.3     What would be the pros and cons of alternative means of managing demand for rail travel, for example by price?

3.4     What lessons should the Government learn from other major transport projects to ensure that any new high speed lines are built on time and to budget? 

4. The strategic route

 4.1     The proposed route to the West Midlands has stations at Euston, Old Oak Common, Birmingham International and Birmingham Curzon Street. Are these the best possible locations? What criteria should be used to assess the case for more (or fewer) intermediate stations?

4.2     Which cities should be served by an eventual high speed network? Is the proposed Y configuration the right choice?

4.3     Is the Government correct to build the network in stages, moving from London northwards?

4.4     The Government proposes a link to HS1 as part of Phase 1 but a direct link to Heathrow only as part of Phase 2. Are those the right decisions?

5. Economic rebalancing and equity

5.1     What evidence is there that HSR will promote economic regeneration and help bridge the north-south economic divide?

5.2     To what extent should the shape of the network be influenced by the desirability of supporting local and regional regeneration?

5.3     Which locations and socio-economic groups will benefit from HSR?

5.4     How should the Government ensure that all major beneficiaries of HSR (including local authorities and business interests) make an appropriate financial contribution and bear risks appropriately? Should the Government seek support from the EU’s TEN-T programme?

6.  Impact

6.1     What will be the overall impact of HSR on UK carbon emissions? How much modal shift from aviation and roads would be needed for HSR to reduce carbon?

6.2     Are environmental costs and benefits (including in relation to noise) correctly accounted for in the business case?

6.3     What would be the impact on freight services on the ‘classic’ network?

6.4     How much disruption will be there to services on the ‘classic’ network during construction, particularly during the rebuilding of Euston?

 Written evidence would be welcome on some or all of these issues and we would be grateful to receive written submissions by Monday 16 May.

 Notes on the submission of written evidence                                                                                  

It assists the Committee if those submitting written evidence adhere to the following guidelines:

 1. Written submissions should be as short as is consistent with conveying the relevant information. As a rough guide, it is usually helpful if they can be confined to six pages or less. Paragraphs should be numbered for ease of reference. A single-page summary of the main points is sometimes helpful. The submission should be in a form suitable for monochrome photocopying.

 2. Evidence should be submitted in Word or Rich Text format, by e-mail to [email protected]. The body of the e-mail should include a contact name, telephone number and postal address. It should be absolutely clear who the submission is from, particularly whether it is on behalf of an organisation or in the name of an individual.

 3. Once accepted by the Committee, written evidence becomes the Committee’s property and it may decide to publish it or make other public use of it. If the Committee decides to accept your contribution as evidence we will email you formally accepting it as such. An acknowledgement of formal acceptance will be sent once all formalities have been completed. You may publicise or publish your submission yourself, once you receive the formal acceptance of your evidence to the Committee. When doing so, please indicate that it has been submitted to the Committee.

 4. Though the Committee is happy to receive copies of published material, formal submissions of evidence should be original work and not published elsewhere.

 5. Committee staff are happy to give more detailed guidance on giving evidence to a select committee, or further advice on any aspect of the Committee’s work, by phone or e-mail.

 FURTHER INFORMATION:

 Committee Membership is as follows:

Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair); Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe); Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South); Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West); Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North); Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne); Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington); Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys); Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South); Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South); Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer).

 Specific Committee Information:  [email protected] 020 7219 6263/3266

 Media Information: Hannah Pearce  [email protected]  020 7219 8430

 Committee Website: www.parliament.uk/transcom

 Watch committees and parliamentary debates online:  www.parliamentlive.tv

 Publications / Reports / Reference Material: Copies of all select committee reports are available from the Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the Stationery Office (0845 7023474).  Committee reports, press releases, evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on www.parliament.uk

PDF: 

HS2 INQUIRY TERMS OF REF.pdf