If a government is elected on a programme that includes erecting 40-foot high gold plated statues of Mr Blobby on every market square, then public accountability is about ensuring that if £1 million is spent on each statue, it’s because the cost of erecting each statue is £1 million, rather than £100k, with the other £900k greasing people’s palms. Yes - unelected bodies can say “this is a stupid waste of money and we think you should reconsider”, but provided that the action is not actually unlawful, their job should be to raise the money and ensure there is no corruption / illegality involved. It is up to the populace as individuals to raise objections, via the planning system or the ballot box (or whatever).
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should cost benefits of new schemes be worked out in a different way?
- Thread starter yorksrob
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Of course, but determining every investment decision on a (partially) subjective BCR has turned it into a circus. Delaying essential projects by years or even decades, which even after commencement are often shelved to save tiny amounts for election bribes. HS2 scrapping is the tip of the iceberg.
Essential in your eyes is a reasonable position for you to take. But essential in the eyes of the voter generally isn't. Even if you only look at those eligible to vote or supporting the winner, this isn't enough because those in office must represent the interests of all constituents on balance.
It’s amusing how you take one word like essential and make presumptions about the writer’s context.
My use of ‘essential’ is core national infrastructure that most voters and businesses rely on every day. Electricity supply being a prime example, and before you say it OFGEM (aka HMT) controls investment decisions, not the private companies.
Obvious to others, but ‘essential’ does not include Cornwall Metro. Should Cornwall Metro or similar be delivered for £57m though? Yes.
There is, at least without tanking the economy, a finite sum of money for investment. One of the primary roles of setting established norms is to allow comparison of the relative benefits of investment in different areas. For example there are many members of the electorate who don't use trains and would say that £57M which you mentioned should have gone to the NHS.
Based on the value judgement you personally have made about the resultant service, sure. But based on evidence of what the electorate or constituents think? Obviously not.
Welcome to the world of devolved political decisions on transport.
Do you have the evidence for your statement?
No, obviously not. I don't need any because it's not me making the claim it should be built.
Well, that's a judgement for voters in the devolved areas to make.
Cornwall, on the other hand, isn't a devolved administration, so the scheme will have to jump through various Whitehall hoops to get done anyway.
The point is they are different skills.
Firstly, my point was not about marginal return, and secondly do you have any studies to back that up?
If ridership is prioritised above all else, you quickly come to the conclusion that spending any money on intercity rail is a waste!
That does not mean that their decisionmaking was perfect.
When a HSR project is by far the most expensive HSR project per km in Eurasia, claims of value for money start to look dubious, as to claims that it's all the result of scope changes.
Again, it's by far the most expensive HSR project per km in Eurasia. Inflation cannot explain that.
Furthermore, my real point is why put so much scrutiny onto small projects whereas massive projects are not given any despite their massive bill?
Does that formula actually take into account service frequency?
The problem with this logic is that it tends to lead to the conclusion that all those Avanti and LNER long-distance services are taking up capacity that could be used by more commuter trains...
What do you think the appropriate method of balancing local and national transport needs is?
HS2 has had more scrutiny than any rail project I know. I’ve done some of it myself. What evidence have you that makes you think it has not been “given any” scrutiny (your words). you might want to check Hansard, the NAO, the IPA, and the various reviews conducted.
Thats not the conclusion at all.
Providing services that generate the most net benefit to society.
Last edited:
It's a good point, but we're potentially left with the conundrum whereby projects in densely populated urban areas always get prioritised over less urban areas.
The Atlantic line* will never generate "the most net benefit" to society. It doesn't have London and Manchester at either end.
It is, however an important transport link to Newquay, with the potential to be much more beneficial with a decent, interval service.
*This is the marketing name for the Newquay line, not to be confused with the Atlantic lines in South London.
Last edited:
I've explained all of this to you before in a polite way, but ultimately, as I've said in other threads, you're going to have to engage in good faith if you want to get more out of this debate. Nearly every post I've read from you has been standoffish and rude, and I've previously explained that if you don't engage with the points in good faith, there's absolutely no obligation for me or others to respond to them as such.
I have made opinions very clear in this and the other thread. If you don't like that I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I am also not going to engage with you any further about why you're mistaken, unless you're able to show better manners.
At the end of the day, the appraisal methodology is pretty sound. The problem is that politicians are desperate to get highly wasteful schemes around it, because they've become desperate for something to put on their election leaflets now they've realised how unlikely it is they can win elections.
Members who have an actual criticism of the appraisal methodology are welcome to suggest some, but that would rather require actually reading it first. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-tag#introduction
There are many valid reasons to critique it, I gave one upthread which is that I think it still underweights greenhouse gas emissions even after these were recently revalued.
Last edited:
I'm here now
Member
I definitely agree and they can be around the same price than the bus alternatives w/ a local's railcard. For example: Roche to Newquay - £3.35 for rail rather than £4 in singles (returns are unclear) via buses that can get stuck in traffic. Now I would imagine that this line is used more by locals in the summer due to the tourism influx.
Indeed. Train fares within Cornwall are also pretty good value for non-locals without a railcard.
My issue is that there often does not seem to be a higher level strategic overview of the rail system and the public transport system in general. Longer-term goals and targets, ideally with cross-party support need to be defined (e.g. a specific percentage of modal shift, reduction in miles driven, connectivity for XX thousand new homes, or targeted economic development of less developed regions) with measureable metrics. Then those high level goals can then be used as a baseline to develop local projects which can be evaluated based on how much they contribute to acheiving them. BCR is then a tool that can help evaluate which projects should be carried out first, but even then it should not be the only or the most important criterion.
Currently it seems to be that if these high level goals exist, then only in a dusty drawer of a civil servant's desk, and they get re-defined on a whim every time there is a change in government, at least in Westminster.
As two simple examples, setting a modal split (by trip) target of no more than 40% for car trips would likely lead to massive, much-needed investments in walking and cycling, large investiments to massively increase the attractiveness of rail transport in urbanised areas outside London, and ideally also a reevaluation of the approach to new housing development, strongly discouraging extremely car-centric housing estates with no amenities reachable without a car.
Setting a target for modal split by distance (rather than by trip) would see investments in high-speed intercity rail.
Officially adopting Vision Zero (zero road deaths) at a national level is likely to lead to significant investment in road safety programmes, and also on modal shift towards rail (fewer drivers = fewer deaths).
The challenge for BCR calculations, particularly in rail, is that planning horizons are too long for any purely economic calculations to be made with any level of accuracy. Of course if you pay some consultants enough they will come up with very precise numbers showing onw thing or another. As has been shown time and time again (Borders, Okehampton, etc), the reality often looks very different. New base tunnels have a design life of at least 100 years, meaning their economic impact is impossible to accurately predict. But it is still pretty obvious that the connectivity that a base tunnel could bring will still have economic benefits even after 100 years. The other issue is that the current BCR approach tends to only consider projects in isolation, and each project at-best poorly estimates its network effect on other projects or on the country as a whole.
It is inherently a political choice which targets to set at a national level, but once they have been, I strongly believe that the government should set a framework and then delegate the implementation, particularly of smaller projects, to local government, while also giving them more power to retain their own funding through local taxation. Westminster should not be deciding which areas get zero-emissions buses or whether a specific cycle lane on a specific road should be built. In that sense, like everything else, poor transport policy is a symptom of poor governance in general. Given the amount of scrutiny and evaluation HS2 went through, it should not have been possible for the PM to scrap it on a whim, with no democratic oversight whatsoever...
Currently it seems to be that if these high level goals exist, then only in a dusty drawer of a civil servant's desk, and they get re-defined on a whim every time there is a change in government, at least in Westminster.
As two simple examples, setting a modal split (by trip) target of no more than 40% for car trips would likely lead to massive, much-needed investments in walking and cycling, large investiments to massively increase the attractiveness of rail transport in urbanised areas outside London, and ideally also a reevaluation of the approach to new housing development, strongly discouraging extremely car-centric housing estates with no amenities reachable without a car.
Setting a target for modal split by distance (rather than by trip) would see investments in high-speed intercity rail.
Officially adopting Vision Zero (zero road deaths) at a national level is likely to lead to significant investment in road safety programmes, and also on modal shift towards rail (fewer drivers = fewer deaths).
The challenge for BCR calculations, particularly in rail, is that planning horizons are too long for any purely economic calculations to be made with any level of accuracy. Of course if you pay some consultants enough they will come up with very precise numbers showing onw thing or another. As has been shown time and time again (Borders, Okehampton, etc), the reality often looks very different. New base tunnels have a design life of at least 100 years, meaning their economic impact is impossible to accurately predict. But it is still pretty obvious that the connectivity that a base tunnel could bring will still have economic benefits even after 100 years. The other issue is that the current BCR approach tends to only consider projects in isolation, and each project at-best poorly estimates its network effect on other projects or on the country as a whole.
It is inherently a political choice which targets to set at a national level, but once they have been, I strongly believe that the government should set a framework and then delegate the implementation, particularly of smaller projects, to local government, while also giving them more power to retain their own funding through local taxation. Westminster should not be deciding which areas get zero-emissions buses or whether a specific cycle lane on a specific road should be built. In that sense, like everything else, poor transport policy is a symptom of poor governance in general. Given the amount of scrutiny and evaluation HS2 went through, it should not have been possible for the PM to scrap it on a whim, with no democratic oversight whatsoever...
I was not claimed that HS2 was unscrutinised as a whole, what I was criticising was the attitude I perceived where HS2 is allowed to run up massive bills well beyond international norms while much smaller projects are condemned in very strong terms.
This is a strange response. I was not saying that was your conclusion; rather, I was saying it was the conclusion that treating ridership as the sole goal inevitably leads to.
That reads to me as you saying only national benefits should be considered. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have tried to be polite and respectful. However in the context of a text-based internet forum, tone is difficult to present. I do however don't see where I have failed to engage in good faith.
This is the sort of claim that can and should be substantiated. Other countries presumably have different methods for determining whether transport projects should go ahead - have there been studies comparing their methods to the UK's?
Assuming local authorities would still be getting some degree of national government funding for this, I can't imagine any government wanting to abandon control of what they spend it on, lest "local authority spaffs national taxpayers' money up the wall" headlines emerge...
Part of their job.
They also have a duty toward the authority as a whole (whether that's a county, city or district).
Well, they certainly have a duty towards their authority as a whole. However, the primary purpose of politicians is to ensure that policy reflects the will of their constituents.
Not in the UK. In the UK we elect representatives, not delegates.
Semantics.
We wouldn't bother electing representatives if we didn't at some level want them to reflect our views.
Very far from semantics as it goes to the heart of “representative democracy”. While we can replace our MPs / councillors if we do not like what they are doing (by standing ourselves for election if needs be), once elected we cannot instruct them (and neither, when it comes down to it, can their party - though the thought of not being re-elected / re-selected will concentrate the mind somewhat. It’s presumably why few MPs will announce before they are selected to stand that it will be their last time.From the moment that announcement is made they are effectively a loose cannon.
We have a representative democracy. You elect a representative not a mouthpiece for your views.
Not at all true. In practice many representatives are often the least bad option.
We still expect them to reflect our views.
Even if those are our views of what's the least worst option.
Who's views? There are a wide range of views on most topics. You cannot expect someone to represent all views.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,792
I think Reston is probably emblematic of a rail industry-government complex that lacks a concrete and coherent image for the future.
It just does things, animated mostly by vague ideas to "Reverse Beeching" or "Improve connectivity".
Even when it does have a grand vision, like with HS2, it tends to suffer from a belief that the scheme will be 'all or nothing'. Phasing doesn't take proper account of the likelihood of cancellations or truncations.
But without said coherent and articulable vision, it can't truly sell the benefits of what it does to the rest of government and society.
It just does things, animated mostly by vague ideas to "Reverse Beeching" or "Improve connectivity".
Even when it does have a grand vision, like with HS2, it tends to suffer from a belief that the scheme will be 'all or nothing'. Phasing doesn't take proper account of the likelihood of cancellations or truncations.
But without said coherent and articulable vision, it can't truly sell the benefits of what it does to the rest of government and society.
To be fair, reversing Beeching has delivered a very successful scheme at Okehampton and is soon to deliver the Blythe and Tyne line. This is one area where the vision is reasonably coherent and sound.
And (having been a councillor for over 20 years - now retired) it is often necessary - and not always easy - to separate the view of a noisy minority from a quiet majority.
The idea that something as complex as capital investment can be addressed by following "a majority view" is rather simplistic.
I think Reston has a pretty adequate service TBH considering the very low usage - it gets 7 trains each way on a Sunday for example (including the LNER ones) whereas East Linton only gets 4 each way on a Sunday despite being a better used station. It also has a more usable commuter service to Edinburgh than East Linton.
I think that's to do with the pathing issues, which might even need more tracks through Dunbar to allow more overtaking. It just seems daft to me that some TPE services created to serve Reston and East Linton are unable to serve East Linton (especially some Berwick shorts which often run almost empty between Dunbar and Berwick).
Another problem with Reston is also lack of active travel/direct footpaths to Ayton, Eyemouth, Coldingham, etc as well as more joined up bus services which could help the situation IMO.
I agree with you overall about devolution in general and the Borders Railway though, only building it to Gorebridge would have been a disaster. It was built at just the right time.
Last edited: