This week's report from the Public Accounts Committee is another strike in the bombardment of criticism that the HS2 project has faced in recent weeks. The criticism from the committee focused on the question about the strategic case for high speed rail as well as questions about the economic calculations used to support the business case for the project.

Even if a project is potentially as "transformative" as HS2, £50bn is a lot of money to spend and it is right that the government is able to present clear economic justifications for it.

Those who question the business case have mostly focused on two issues: whether a more incrementalist approach to improving the rail network would deliver enough capacity to deal with the expected continued increase in demand for travel and the effects of high speed rail on economic growth.

Those arguing for incrementalism should remember that extra capacity created by the £9bn upgrade of the West Coast Main line completed in 2008 is already almost full. Over £50bn could therefore easily be spent without delivering significant long term improvements in capacity or travel time between our big cities.

The economic argument seems to be split between those who believe that, despite the trend over the past few decades, some transformative technology will lead to a collapse in demand in rail use and those who believe that better connections between London and the UK's biggest cities will tend to suck jobs into the capital rather than expanding prosperity outside of it.

Holding out for holograms, additive printing or the driverless car to solve the impending rail capacity crunch is a risk we can't take. Economic growth and improved technology has increased demands for travel and it is difficult to see that trend reversing any time soon.

When it comes to assessing the regional impact, I find it odd that many of those who accept that improved airport capacity to link London to the rest of the world will boost growth also believe that better rail services delivering improved connectivity will somehow damage economic prospects for the north and Midlands.

As the KPMG report on the regional economic impact of HS2 published today shows the route will deliver additional economic growth of £15bn a year shared by London and the rest of the UK, with the north and Midlands gaining at least double the benefit of the south.

The Olympics and Crossrail both show that we are a country that can deliver major infrastructure on budget and on time. As a native Yorkshireman and now a councillor in Westminster in the heart of our capital, I believe that HS2 is a project that will transform the economic geography of Britain delivering a huge economic boost to the north and more modest but welcome growth to the capital, too, and I am glad to see that the government is showing their commitment to pushing ahead with the project.

Andrew Smith is a Conservative Westminster councillor.

• Want your say? Email sarah.marsh@theguardian.com to suggest contributions to the network.

Not already a member? Join us now for more comment, analysis and the latest job opportunities in local government.