Constructing new railways is undoubtedly a costly endeavour. Even under ideal conditions, cutting through landscapes can cost millions of dollars per mile and take decades to complete, CNN reported.

When the project involves building through one of Europe’s most densely populated countries, like Britain, both costs and opposition skyrocket. 

Britain’s High Speed 2 (HS2) rail project, currently estimated by the UK government to cost between $58.4 billion and $70 billion for its first- and now only- phase, comes with a staggering price tag of $416 million per mile. This makes it the world’s most expensive railway project, earning it widespread criticism.

For comparison, the troubled California High-Speed Rail project in the United States is estimated to cost up to $200 million per mile, while France’s Tours-Bordeaux TGV line, completed in the mid-2010s, cost just $32-$40 million per mile. Most European high-speed rail projects outside the UK typically range around $66.4 million per mile.

Even densely populated countries like China and Japan have managed to construct high-speed railways through megacities for significantly less. For example, China’s Jakarta-Bandung “WHOOSH” line in Indonesia, built through challenging terrain, costs approximately $80 million per mile.

In Britain, however, major infrastructure projects are notorious for exceeding budgets. HS2’s costs have ballooned over time, with many now considering it an expensive failure unlikely to deliver the promised social and economic benefits.

Launched in 2012 with an initial projection of $42.8 billion for nearly 400 miles of railway, HS2 has since been plagued by a series of challenges, including political interference, a lack of long-term planning, bureaucratic delays, poor project management, and insufficient oversight. The project has cycled through five CEOs, seven chairmen, six prime ministers, eight finance ministers, and nine transport ministers amid a period of political instability in the UK.

The construction industry, wary of these systemic issues, has inflated bids to include hefty mitigation costs. As a result, what began as a bold vision for Britain’s transport future has devolved into a cautionary tale of mismanagement and spiralling expenses.