ICE briefing paper: the cancellation of HS2’s northern leg – learning lessons

The decision to cancel the northern leg of High Speed 2 (HS2) means the UK currently has the worst outcome – a truncated rail line that may worsen rather than improve rail services to the North.

It also raised doubts about the UK’s ability to deliver major infrastructure projects.

This ICE Next Steps policy programme explored how and why that decision was made, and what lessons policymakers and practitioners should learn.

That the prime minister alone could decide to cancel the northern leg was notable.

But shallow political support for the project, spiralling costs, and the high turnover of politicians overseeing it made the decision much easier politically.

What did the programme explore?

This programme explored decision-making in planning, procurement and delivery on HS2 to understand why costs spiralled and support evaporated.

Its findings are based on insight from key decision-makers involved throughout HS2’s lifecycle, infrastructure professionals and other experts.

Infrastructure is key to improving people’s lives and meeting the UK’s economic, environmental and social objectives.

How that infrastructure is planned, promoted, developed and delivered needs to be continuously improved.

This briefing paper sets out the following lessons for future major infrastructure projects from the cancellation of HS2’s northern leg:

Who is in charge of infrastructure projects must be clear.

• Establish processes to protect institutional memory.
• Avoid duplication of roles across project teams.
• Ensure departmental oversight is focused on the right areas.

Stronger client and departmental capability is needed – particularly on technical assurance and ‘owning the project’.

• Use independent, expert ‘challenge panels’ for design control.
• Project sponsors need to prioritise appropriate recruitment and training.

Any programme of this scale and significance needs more development time before commencing works.

• Sufficient time is needed to assess alternative options, build in flexibility and challenge designs and specifications.
• Give due consideration to how major projects interact with other infrastructure to maximise benefits and minimise disruption.

The contracting approach should set up the project for best-practice delivery.

• Contracts need to be based on mature designs and extensive risk mitigation.
• Clients need to retain the ability to be a ‘guiding mind’ overseeing technical development.

Major projects and programmes require clarity and consistency on outcomes to achieve political and public buy-in and deliver value for money.

• An overarching transport strategy would clarify the strategic need for major projects.
• Initial planning should be agnostic about transport infrastructure and modes.
• The benefits of major projects are understated and need to be better articulated.