HS2 is officially ‘unachievable’ after being given red rating

The headline makes it sound like they have engineering challenges that can't be overcome when actually the classification in this report tells us nothing new.

Here is a link to the report that they are referencing:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171218/IPA-Annual-report-2022-2023.pdf

It summarizes about 150 projects in about 30 pages, so there is no specific rationale or analysis given for why each project receives the rating that they give it.

The description of the colour ratings says:

Annex A: Explanation of DCA colour ratings
The DCA is an evaluation from the IPA or the SRO of a project’s likelihood of achieving its aims and objectives, and doing so on time and on budget
...
Red: Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.

The HS2 projects are already over-budget (as stated in the article), so it is clear that the likelihood of achieving them on budget is zero, which makes a Red rating inevitable, and not particularly newsworthy.

I try not to be all doom and gloom, but this is the exact sort and scale of project the UK needs to be successfully completing to combat climate change. The fact we can't is legitimately terrifying.

Stuff like this just makes me wonder what’s the point of working and contributing to the country.
Things like this and funding the NHS are what people need, yet apparently it can’t be done.
How can every single thing that benefits regular people be too expensive, what else is there to spend money on??
- Best use of the money is to give it to the rich based on whoe governments are acting aroundthe world.
It's not, so far as I can tell, saying that the project cannot be done. The Red rating, equivalent to unachievable, is measuring against the goals set for the project, including financial.
So what this is saying (or rather confirming) is that it's not achievable based on the current project goals. Or to put it another way, it's over budget and cannot be delivered within budget.
So yeah, still not great that we can't deliver something like this on budget, but if you look in to how it was originally costed for the business case there are holes in the logic large enough to drive several high speed trains through. Sideways. Hopefully the benefits are large enough that they still go through with it, but I suspect that's largely dependent on which narratives take hold during the run up to the next election and whether the Tories can gaslight people in to thinking that country finances work the same way as personal finances.
There's growing evidence that the opposite may be true:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/02/will-hs2-really-help-cut-the-uks-carbon-footprint
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/23/halt-new-roads-and-developments-adding-to-emissions-advisers-to-tell-uk-government
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/23JAN_HS2_Double_Jeopardy_FINAL01.02.23.pdf
- That's not exactly the case, your second link even states that HS2 would offset (via modal shift) more carbon than it emits during construction.
  That ofcourse isn't to say we should hand wave it away, construction is one of the worst industries when it comes to pollution. But, the problem is we will need to build things, because the structure of society needs to change to stop being so carbon dependant. If we do nothing, then we still have all the structural problems which caused the problem in the first place.
  HS2 stops, some, people having to drive. Longer term, it would also help to move business concentration away from the south east. Decentralisation across the entire UK would mean that a lot more things are a lot more local to a lot more people. HS2 doesn't do that alone, but HS2-type projects (my original comment) absolutely do.
  Even if you support degrowth as a method, that still requires substantial change, which in turn means construction.

There is no way the government pull the plug at this stage. The only course is to shake that magic money tree and get it done at any cost. As usual.

To get things back on track (heh, on track, see what I did there?), I anticipate some especially juicy contracts going to newly forged 'construction' companies set up by Tory donors.
- That’s the problem with estimating the cost of these projects, they never really take into account all the corruption and backhanders.
They will cancel the bit to crewe and the East Midlands and Euston and call a train line from hounslow.to Birmingham as hs2 deliverd missing out on all the vital capacity upgrade to wcml, midland line and eastern that it would actually help.with

I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.

Jaysus H Christ. Can we not build any new infrastructure?

With a government that literally could not organise a piss up in a brewery, the answer has to be no. They are just grifters conning the country out of money for themselves and anyone who will support them. Nothing else has any importance. The covid inquiry outcome will be very telling just how little these scumbags actually wanted to help the people they serve.
- People make real money on government contracking and it is a good place for corruption where state actors and private sector fleece tax payers. Boomers are getting extra greedy tho, back in the day at least they delivered something, half the to now project isn't even delivered or delivered without poor condition or not fit for the use case.
- The delay and spiralling cost seems to be a mixture of government failure, local issues, national anti HS2 campaigns, poor planning by the contractors building the thing.
  What, in your opinion, could this government (or the next Labour government) do to enable 21st century transport infrastructure to be built across the country (north to south, and east to west)?