TAPAS.network | 14 January 2022 | Commentary | David Metz

New thinking on rail appraisal should extend across the modes

David Metz

David Metz took a closer look at the underpinning analysis behind the government’s recent Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands. He found a new set of principles being applied, that he believes should prompt new approaches across all transport investment. He presents his thinking here in the first of two articles TAPAS invited him to write.

WITH BOTH ROAD AND RAIL investment schemes very much in the spotlight now, it must surely be timely to examine the analytical principles being used to justify them — both individually and comparatively. I therefore propose to take a look at that issue in this feature, starting with the most recent rail example, and in a subsequent one extending my argument to the whole transport investment landscape.

The Government published its Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands (IRP) in November. Despite headline investment worth £96bn, public reception was mostly unfavourable — and highly political. Expectations had been excessively raised. Cities that failed to gain hoped for improved services and new stations spoke up more loudly than the winners of this apparent lottery. Huw Merriman MP, chair of the Commons Transport Committee, put it well as ‘the danger in selling perpetual sunlight and then leaving it for others to explain the arrival of moonlight.’ He might also have questioned the relationship between professional transport scheme development theories and popular perceptions of appropriate priorities.

What I don’t think has actually been previously remarked upon is the absence of any supporting economic analysis to justify the investment choices of the IRP. This is in marked contrast to the succession of (changing) documents justifying HS2, with benefit-cost ratios that declined over time as the capital costs steadily rose. One problem with applying the DfT’s standard approach to economic appraisal, for which the main benefit is travel time saving, is that it is virtually silent on the distribution of economic benefits — a serious disadvantage for a project whose stated strategic purpose is to boost the economies of the cities of the North and Midlands.

The DfT has at long last seemingly recently recognised the problematic nature of theoretical time savings. The IRP states: ‘Over the last 50 years the time people spend travelling has remained relatively constant, though distances travelled have increased…. Overall, people have taken the benefits of better transport links as the ability to access a wider range of jobs, business and leisure opportunities, rather than to reduce total time spent travelling.’ (para 2.8)

It is gratifying to find the DfT apparently accepting an understanding of this reality, to which I have been drawing attention for many years, albeit in presenting its proposals to a general audience, rather than the transport professional one. Nevertheless, there is a footnote appended that suggests the Department doesn’t yet quite completely get it: noting “that the use of estimated time savings as the basis for quantifying economic impact remains robust.’ (Footnote 22)

If time savings are a ‘robust’ measure of economic impact, why was the standard cost-benefit approach to investment appraisal not employed in this case? The answer, as the IRP recognises in another interesting swerve from established practice, is that ‘rail schemes in the North are at increased risk of being considered poor value for money when applying conventional cost-benefit analysis. This is driven in part by smaller city populations in the North, different travel patterns, as well as the general high cost of building rail infrastructure.’ (para 3.59).

It is hard not to point out the obvious here- that conventional cost-benefit analysis, as prescribed in the thousand-pages of the DfT’s Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG), is not fit for the purpose of appraising rail investments. The main problems are the absence of observed time savings in the long run, and silence on both the spatial distribution of benefits and the value of consequential property development and economic regeneration.

green quotations

...prioritising regional links appears to have the highest potential economic benefits overall for cities...

In developing the IRP, the Government has been guided by the general analysis of rail investment options carried out by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC), which concluded that prioritising regional links appears to have the highest potential economic benefits overall for cities in the Midlands and the North and would justify improvement of many of the currently poorest services. Better East-West links are seen as higher priority than North-South routes.

The Government agrees with the NIC’s analysis that there are opportunities to better serve existing city centres and wider city regions for greater economic benefit, and better integration with existing transport networks. Given constraints on public expenditure, this seems to be the principal reason why the eastern leg of HS2 between the East Midlands and Leeds will not now go ahead.

To reach its conclusions, the NIC developed a novel multi-criteria analytical approach that attributed monetary values to improvements in productivity in city centres, benefits from connecting people to city centres, and environmental impacts. In addition, estimates were made of improvements to connectivity from faster journeys, and of the benefits from unlocking investment in land around stations. In essence, this approach replaces traditional transport user benefits, which mainly take the form of a reduction in time costs, with estimates of the benefits of increased productivity and consumer amenity arising from higher city densities made possible by urban transport investment.

The NIC analytical approach was, unusually, also developed for consideration of a portfolio of rail investments. This aspect is very welcome since there is an undoubted need to move beyond appraisal of individual schemes to view the benefits of whole programmes of transport infrastructure investments, both of single, and logically a mixture of different modes.

In a subsequent article, I will thus consider the applicability of this welcome emerging new approach to also both road investments, and cross-modal choices.

David Metz is an honorary professor at the UCL Centre for Transport Studies. www.drivingchange.org.uk

This article was first published in LTT magazine, LTT837, 14 January 2022.

d4-20220114
taster
Read more articles by David Metz
Airport expansion conflicts with Net Zero will be very hard to resolve, whilst economic case is unconvincing
A SURPRISING feature of the new Labour government is its enthusiasm for new airport capacity, notwithstanding its commitment to a pathway to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The primacy of economic growth, so strongly espoused by the Prime Minister and his Chancellor, have been summoned to logically justify this approach – both as a practical measure, and a signal to prospective investors in the UK economy that ‘we are open for business’ – even despite the adverse climate change consequences. The economic case itself, however, is very questionable.
Plenty of Professors now – but is our radar properly tuned to what we really need to know and understand?
Twenty years ago our top transport professors shared their thoughts on transport policy with the Secretary of State. How appropriate was their agenda then, and did they actually get their prescription badly wrong? And is the current scope of academic research and exploration any better and relevant wonders David Metz.
Is our transport regulation serving us well - and supporting this era of innovation?
Transport technologies and business models are changing fast, but are the established regulatory frameworks for them fit for purpose, wonders David Metz. He examines the various bodies in charge of authorising and supervising transport activities and sees some that are embracing change, but others not seemingly equipped to do so. It could mean lost opportunities to enhance transport provision and achieve greater efficiencies in its operation through innovation, he believes.
Read more articles on TAPAS
Infrastructure investment. Buy now - pay later?
IN HER BUDGET Chancellor Rachel Reeves mixed talking tough on financial discipline - with some painful consequences in raising £40bn in new taxation to pay for day-to- day expenditures - coupled with the belief that “borrowing to invest”, will kickstart the economy and ultimately get Britain’s debt under control through the fruits of growth.
Infrastructure investment. Buy now - pay later?
IN HER BUDGET Chancellor Rachel Reeves mixed talking tough on financial discipline - with some painful consequences in raising £40bn in new taxation to pay for day-to- day expenditures - coupled with the belief that “borrowing to invest”, will kickstart the economy and ultimately get Britain’s debt under control through the fruits of growth.
The Smeed Report on Road Pricing: Still influential after 60 years, but the difficult issues still remain
The idea of ‘pay as you go’ charging for road use has been around for more than half a century , but still only adopted in a handful of situations world wide . The case was lucidly made back in 1964 in the seminal report to the then Ministry of Transport by a panel led by Reuben Smeed. Attractive to many economists and traffic engineering technologists, the same cannot be said for the politicians who need to sign off schemes, observes Phil Goodwin. Here he explores the uncompleted journey towards the application of road pricing in the UK – and the circumstances in which it might yet happen.