MORE pressure has been piled on the Coalition Government over its flagship £50 billion high speed rail plan (HS2), with the Institute of Directors calling on it to abandon what it branded a "grand folly".
It suggested investment should instead be ploughed into the Scotland to London west and east coast rail routes.
The move by some of Britain's top bosses came after Labour said it could drop its support if costs rose above £50bn.
Alistair Darling, the former chancellor and transport secretary, also signalled his opposition. He said the costs of HS2, which some have put as high as £80bn, would drain resources from the rest of the network.
Simon Walker, Director General of the IoD, said the body's research suggested firms were not convinced by the economic case for HS2.
In terms of what the key priority should be, the survey showed 80% of IoD members felt investment in existing intercity rail services was most important, while 41% said HS2.
In 2011 a similar survey of IoD members found 54% rated HS2 as important to their business; this figure has now fallen to 41%.
Mr Walker said: "Businesses know value for money when they see it and our research shows they don't see it in the Government's case for HS2.
He said there appeared to be little enthusiasm on the whole, with almost every region expecting London to benefit most.
He added: "The IoD cannot support the Government's economic case for HS2 when so many of our members are doubtful of the benefits.
"The money would be better spent elsewhere, in a way that will benefit much more of the country. Investment in the West and East Coast main lines combined with a variety of other infrastructure projects would be a far more sensible option."
Mr Walker added: "It is time for the Government to look at a thousand smaller projects instead of falling for one grand folly."
At present, the HS2 plan involves a new rail link from London to Birmingham by 2026, to be continued to Manchester and Leeds by 2032. While an extension to Scotland has been mooted, no plans have been put forward.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article