It is "essential for the UK" for the HS2 high-speed rail project to go ahead, a report by MPs has said.
The risks of not going ahead with the project "significantly outweigh the risks of doing so," added the report from the House of Commons Transport Committee.
The committee, chaired by Louise Ellman, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, also said serious thought should be given to building the second-phase northern section of the line at the same time as the London-to-Birmingham phase.
The committee said it remained "convinced that the project is justified" but added they would not accept other vital transport projects were delayed due to HS2.
The cost of the project in its entirety is estimated at £42.6 billion with £7.5bn needed for the high-speed trains. Of this £42.6bn, a total of £14.56bn is contingency.
A study aiming to increase the benefits to Scotland of the HS2 rail project was announced by the UK government last month.
In its report, the committee said: "The Department for Transport's (DfT's) communications about HS2 should emphasise that the estimated cost is £28bn, not £50bn, and that cost increases to date have largely been due to the decision to undertake more tunnelling and other work to mitigate the impact of the project on people living near the route."
Joe Rukin, campaign manager for the Stop HS2 group, said: "Despite the official cost of HS2 standing at £50bn, the committee want to pretend it is £28bn, even though they said it would be £34bn in 2011.
Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: "HS2 will be a heart bypass for the clogged arteries of our transport system. We therefore welcome the Transport Committee's conclusion that the new North-South railway is the best long-term solution to increasing capacity and that alternative proposals would simply not cope with the predicted increase in demand."
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