Lena Tochtermann: Don't be too quick to ignore transport basics

The Government will announce its plans for the new route between London and Birmingham in March. Work could start as early as 2017.

But this will potentially commit the Government to a west coast route – meaning Leeds would remain off the high speed track for now. The opposition parties also support more high speed rail for the UK with Lord Heseltine, the former Deputy Prime Minister, saying yesterday that continuity is essential, even if the party in power changes at the election.

High speed rail is seen as a way to ease crowding on commuter trains and as a green alternative to short-haul flights. Politicians rightly argue that Britain, the birth place of the railway, now lags behind the continent.

The economic benefits of high speed rail are compelling. High speed rail reduces passengers' time spent on trains. People are able to travel further and wider for work and leisure. It also helps businesses access markets and opens up competition and trading opportunities. The products we buy should become cheaper and businesses more productive.

And even if not a high speed forerunner, Leeds will gain, too, as these benefits spill over from the high speed line into neighbouring cities. The end result could be a boost to Leeds's economy and real wages for Leeds residents.

With public spending cuts on the horizon and frontline education, health and police services protected, other spending programmes will be reduced by 10-14 per cent in 2011-2014. Transport projects historically have been the first to be cut.

In this context, should investing in high speed rail be the top priority?

Rail, especially high speed, is a costly business. A route from London to Scotland via Manchester (over 500km) could cost over 34bn.

Even viewed over 60 years, it is not clear that the benefits will cover this cost. Looking at a possible line between Dallas and Houston (360km), Harvard economist, Edward Glaeser, concluded the costs of a high speed line could outweigh its benefits by at least 247m each year. At a time of fiscal constraint, high speed rail might not be the best bang for the taxpayers' buck.

And are UK cities ready for a high speed line? High speed rail creates additional demand for public transport services at either end of the tracks. Passengers need to travel on to their destinations.

While government expenditure on transport has risen in recent years – by over 30 per cent over the past decade – this has not helped UK cities outside London reverse the historic levels of underinvestment in their transport systems. The truth is UK cities' transport systems are not yet prepared for the additional demand high speed rail generates.

Our work shows that there is a strong economic case for more mundane transport improvements within UK cities, tackling hotspots of congestion and public transport bottlenecks. In the Leeds City Region, this means strengthening Wakefield's and Harrogate's links with Leeds – and providing better bus links between Bradford and Leeds.

This will make a real difference to commuter lives every single day and ensure that we get value for taxpayer money. Politicians need to get the basics right, before they spend billions on a shiny new train set.

We would like to see the Government commit to maintain enough transport funding to set aside money for improving local links in the run up to high speed rail. Investing in schemes to fight transport bottlenecks within cities like Leeds will make sure that, by the time the era of high speed rail arrives, our cities haven't ground to a halt.

Lena Tochtermann is a policy analyst at the Centre for Cities (www.centreforcities.org).