HS2 costs at Euston soar to £4.8bn for ONE station that will be 15 years late

Problems arise at Euston (Image: Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty) Ministers were accused by MPs of ‘floundering’ over the multi-billion-pound HS2 rail route after a crucial section of the line was paused. MPs warned that delaying the work at Euston shows that the Government ‘does not know what it is trying to achieve’ despite more than eight years of planning. A damning report by the Public Accounts Committee urged the Department for Transport to ‘finally establish’ its expectations for the central London station. HS2 Ltd, the Government-owned firm responsible for building the high-speed line, proposed an 11-platform two-phase design in 2015. After recommendations from the Oakervee Review in 2020, the DfT told HS2 Ltd to switch to a 10-platform one-stage design in a bid to make it simpler and cheaper. Transport Secretary Mark Harper said in March work would halt for two years as costs had ballooned to £4.8billion from an initial £2.6billion budget. The DfT has said it will use the time to work out the minimum requirements for the station and to decide the priorities. The PAC said: ‘Despite spending over eight years on planning and designing the HS2 Euston station, the department still does not know what it is trying to achieve with the station.’ The report described the £2.6billion budget set in April 2020 as ‘completely unrealistic’ for what the DfT wanted to deliver. HS2 Ltd told the MPs it set that figure in the expectation it would be revised, given the uncertainty around costs. Estimates rose to £4.4billion in June 2020 for the 11 platforms and £4.8billion in March for the revised plan. The committee said updates to Parliament on cost pressures at Euston had not disclosed that the building costs might be far higher. The HS2 work continues at Euston (Image: Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty ) The PAC called on the Government to provide greater transparency in its six-monthly progress reports to Parliament. Its chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier said: ‘The HS2 Euston project is floundering. This is a multi-billion-pound scheme – which has already caused major disruption to the local community – put on pause. ‘The pause, ostensibly to save money, is not cost-free. Mothballing and possible compensation for businesses which have lost work will all need to be added to the HS2 tally. The Government must now be clear about what it is trying to achieve with this new station and how it will benefit the public. ‘Our report finds that a wildly unrealistic budget for HS2 Euston was set in 2020 with the expectation that it would be revised. ‘The Government must demonstrate that it is not just repeating the same mistakes of unrealistic costings. HS2 Euston has shown us that forging ahead over-optimistically in an unclear direction is clearly not the right approach.’ The scheme would integrate HS2 services with the existing mainline railway and the Underground. HS2 trains are not expected to reach Euston before 2041 after initially being scheduled to start in 2026. When HS2 finally opens between London and Birmingham – now expected between 2029 and 2033 – the capital’s terminus will be Old Oak Common in its west suburbs. A budget of £55.7billion for the whole HS2 project was set in 2015. But the target cost, excluding the eastern leg of Phase 2b from the West Midlands to the East Midlands, has soared to between £53billion and £61billion at 2019 prices. A DfT spokesman said: ‘We remain committed to delivering HS2 from Euston to Manchester in the most cost-effective way for taxpayers, which is why earlier this year we made the decision to re-phase the construction of Euston to help balance the nation’s books and work on an affordable design. ‘The National Audit Office recently acknowledged this will provide time to put the station design on a more stable footing. ‘We continue to work at pace to ensure the transformational benefits of HS2 are delivered to passengers by better connecting our biggest cities, supporting thousands of jobs and helping grow the economy. We note the recommendations made in the committee’s report and will respond to them.’