Should cost benefits of new schemes be worked out in a different way?

[stuu]

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.

I agree, and it's not just a rail issue, it's infrastructure in general, and really the entire country is run on a short-term basis

Nothing is output-driven. We have campaigns saying "x should have a railway station", which is fine, but we really should have criteria-based decision making. Nowhere being more than 10 miles from a railway, or an aim of a minimum of half-hourly trains at all towns with more than 25k people. Those are just examples and the actual metric might be different, but having some vision for what an ideal rail network is should be the driver

Hs2, whilst a bigger plan, still existed in isolation, deliberately, when it should have taken a far more holistic approach to what it would enable on the legacy network

 

[eldomtom2]

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.

I blame that partially on an attitude in the industry that "well they have to build it". As can be seen from posts on this forum, the cancellation of Phase 2 still hasn't sunk in to at least some people in the industry.

 

[43096]

Absolutely not. Yes, there will always be limited funds, but let the people (democracy) decide.

"Let the people decide"? That's what gave us Brexit and all the negative consequences that came with it. So that's a really, really bad idea.

 

[Starmill]

This is the sort of claim that can and should be substantiated.

I might substantiate it if I had time and thought the response would benefit the primary readers. Unfortunately as the primary reader is you I don't believe it would be worth it. I've explained multiple times that you've come across as incredibly rude and stand-offish, and I believe you're arguing in bad faith - your main intention seems to me to be to make yourself sound clever, not find knowledge and truth. I've given my view, if you don't like it, you'll just have to deal with that.

I blame that partially on an attitude in the industry that "well they have to build it". As can be seen from posts on this forum, the cancellation of Phase 2 still hasn't sunk in to at least some people in the industry.

I don't think this is true at all. Nobody is questioning the facts here - a service with HS2 rolling stock between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street will commence, at some point in the next decade. A further service from Old Oak Common via Stafford to one or more destinations may or may not be feasible on top of this, but if so and where to remains to be worked up, depending on what can be planned in and out of Old Oak Common and across the junction with the WCML. It also depends on the enabling works required at Crewe and whichever final destination(s) are used to permit whatever configuration of rolling stock HS2 ends up deploying. I don't think anyone can disagree with any of that, in the industry or out of it. Obviously there may also be further work going on around lobbying and contingency and whatever state Euston might be in but the above is the basics everyone accepts.

 

[Xavi]

"Let the people decide"? That's what gave us Brexit and all the negative consequences that came with it. So that's a really, really bad idea.

Who said anything about referendum? Democracy is people’s choice, but too many decisions are now made according to rules written by civil servants.

 

[eldomtom2]

your main intention seems to me to be to make yourself sound clever

I really don't see how I've been trying to make myself sound clever!

I don't think this is true at all. Nobody is questioning the facts here - a service with HS2 rolling stock between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street will commence, at some point in the next decade. A further service from Old Oak Common via Stafford to one or more destinations may or may not be feasible on top of this, but if so and where to remains to be worked up, depending on what can be planned in and out of Old Oak Common and across the junction with the WCML. It also depends on the enabling works required at Crewe and whichever final destination(s) are used to permit whatever configuration of rolling stock HS2 ends up deploying. I don't think anyone can disagree with any of that, in the industry or out of it. Obviously there may also be further work going on around lobbying and contingency and whatever state Euston might be in but the above is the basics everyone accepts.

I think you're confused about what my point is, which is that there is still an attitude displayed by some (at the very least Bald Rick does) of "well they're going to have to build at least something like Phase 2a".

 

[6Gman]

Who said anything about referendum? Democracy is people’s choice, but too many decisions are now made according to rules written by civil servants.

Civil servants working within policies set by elected politicians.

In practical terms what does "democracy is people's choice" mean?

 

[Xavi]

Civil servants working within policies set by elected politicians.

In practical terms what does "democracy is people's choice" mean?

Politicians have to work within the rules that already exist, many written by the civil servants themselves. It’s part of the reason we will see little change with a Labour government. The Green Book being the one discussed in this thread. The framework of the OBR and planning policy are others.

We’re a long way from what Abraham Lincoln said: “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people".

 

[Magdalia]

Politicians have to work within the rules that already exist, many written by the civil servants themselves. It’s part of the reason we will see little change with a Labour government. The Green Book being the one discussed in this thread. The framework of the OBR and planning policy are others.

Politicians do have the power to change the rules, and occasionally they use it.

Two examples are monetary policy being set independently by by the Bank of England, introduced by Gordon Brown, and official economic forecasts being prepared independently by the Office for Budget Responsibility, introduced by George Osborne.

Politicians could rewrite what is in the Green Book, and change planning policy, if they chose to do so. Labour are talking about planning reform: it will be interesting to see what they propose in their General Election manifesto, and, if elected, whether they deliver it.

 

[Starmill]

I think you're confused about what my point is, which is that there is still an attitude displayed by some (at the very least Bald Rick does) of "well they're going to have to build at least something like Phase 2a".

That's not what Bald Rick or anyone else is saying though. I think you're confused about their point, which is that the government will be too embarrassed if the service via Stafford can actually run from Old Oak Common is in the range 0 - 2tph, which is currently likely, but as no detailed work has been done there's not a lot anyone can say beyond that. In addition, it's worth noting there's been a political pen-stroke to undo phase 2a, so it's correct to say all that's actually needed to replace part or all of it is the same thing.

Politicians have to work within the rules that already exist, many written by the civil servants themselves. It’s part of the reason we will see little change with a Labour government. The Green Book being the one discussed in this thread. The framework of the OBR and planning policy are others.

We’re a long way from what Abraham Lincoln said: “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people".

This is very naive thinking. The OBR were set up by David Cameron's first government, there's no specific reason they should continue to exist or not in perpetuity. Quangos are frequently disbanded and established doing very different jobs.

 

[Xavi]

This is very naive thinking. The OBR were set up by David Cameron's first government, there's no specific reason they should continue to exist or not in perpetuity. Quangos are frequently disbanded and established doing very different jobs.

That's very rich.

We all know that quangos are routinely established and disbanded. Let's see if Starmer and Reeves disband OBR; I know where my money is. An excessive number of public bodies is part of the problem (and the tax burden). Unelected civil servants develop regulations with ministers rarely taking responsibility for performance or outcomes. Even when they are disbanded, ministers typically replace them e.g., Public Health England (used to shield ministers in the pandemic) being replaced by UK Health Security Agency.

Politicians do have the power to change the rules, and occasionally they use it.

Two examples are monetary policy being set independently by by the Bank of England, introduced by Gordon Brown, and official economic forecasts being prepared independently by the Office for Budget Responsibility, introduced by George Osborne.

Politicians could rewrite what is in the Green Book, and change planning policy, if they chose to do so. Labour are talking about planning reform: it will be interesting to see what they propose in their General Election manifesto, and, if elected, whether they deliver it.

Agreed, government does have the power but often default to introducing new public bodies or transferring responsibility, which delivers very little. Even Brexit has resulted in little change to legislation.

Handing monetary policy to BofE reduced the ability of the elected government to manage the economy. The simple BofE rule of keeping inflation at 2% is too simplistic, and how often do politicians and commentators now blame the bank?

Similarly, creating OBR enabled the Chancellor to distance himself from economic forecasts and inaccuracies. I am sure Labour will retain this convenient cover.

Any rewrite of The Green Book or planning policy would be undertaken by a public body, the elected politicians may announce some favourable headlines (before redrafting) but there is a lot of deeply embedded red tape that civil servants would retain. Probably explains why successive governments have talked planning and delivered nothing.

 

[Starmill]

That's very rich.

We all know that quangos are routinely established and disbanded. Let's see if Starmer and Reeves disband OBR; I know where my money is. An excessive number of public bodies is part of the problem (and the tax burden). Unelected civil servants develop regulations with ministers rarely taking responsibility for performance or outcomes. Even when they are disbanded, ministers typically replace them e.g., Public Health England (used to shield ministers in the pandemic) being replaced by UK Health Security Agency.

Do you have any actual points? These are all soundbites, same as your ones about the civil service. They mean little and moaning about them changes nothing because it persuades nobody. If all you do is repeat jice soundbites, people who already believe this stuff just mindlessly agree, and people who don't switch off to your entire argument.

 

[eldomtom2]

That's not what Bald Rick or anyone else is saying though. I think you're confused about their point, which is that the government will be too embarrassed if the service via Stafford can actually run from Old Oak Common is in the range 0 - 2tph, which is currently likely, but as no detailed work has been done there's not a lot anyone can say beyond that.

That hasn't been the impression I've got from his posts, which came off to me as more "the government will have to deal with congestion on the WCML, and Phase 2a is the only practical way to do that".

Besides, that's assuming that the government will a) be embarrassed if the number of trains that can be run via Handsacre if low and b) that they'll be willing to spend a lot on capital investments to change that. It doesn't actually change my point.

In addition, it's worth noting there's been a political pen-stroke to undo phase 2a, so it's correct to say all that's actually needed to replace part or all of it is the same thing.

Yes, but to an extent that's irrelevant. It's not like the government decides to build phase 2a and it magically gets built without any further effort.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, but to an extent that's irrelevant. It's not like the government decides to build phase 2a and it magically gets built without any further effort.

Of course not. But having been consented the scheme plainly stands well apart from any other proposals - unless and until either the consent is withdrawn or expires unused. The other side of that is that even a smal modification to what was consented still involves some very substantial work to get any amendment through.

It doesn't actually change my point.

What I'm saying is that your point is completely incorrect. Nobody is working on the assumption that they government will approve any further parts of HS2 unless and until that happens. You're free to either leave that there or try to go into further detail about why you originally said so.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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.

That is my main "complaint" too. Carbon/Greenhouse/general environment not given nearly enough weighting in business cases/BCR calculations etc.

 

[Senex]

Civil servants working within policies set by elected politicians.

In practical terms what does "democracy is people's choice" mean?

But civil servants who are very good at getting what they want, especially when weak or ever-changing politicians head up ministries. Surely the whole appeal of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" lies in how far we believe there's an awful lot of truth behind the writing especially as far as Sir Humphrey and Arnold go.

 

[Xavi]

Do you have any actual points? These are all soundbites, same as your ones about the civil service. They mean little and moaning about them changes nothing because it persuades nobody. If all you do is repeat jice soundbites, people who already believe this stuff just mindlessly agree, and people who don't switch off to your entire argument.

Many of my 'soundbites' are responses to out of context and selective quoting.

To summarise the soundbites. I have deep knowledge from my 30-year career that much of our UK infrastructure assets are on the brink. There is also anecdotal evidence that the current appraisal system undervalues smaller regional investments. A step change in capital investment is required to avert serious problems and to deliver a more regionally balanced economy. Much of the position we find ourselves in is a consequence of the UK having low capital investment compared to similar nations over the past 40-45 years. The current structure will not deliver and is hampered by the sheer volume of red tape generated by an excessive number of public bodies.

You believe the current appraisal system works reasonably well and doesn't need much change. PS I agree re carbon / environmental!

 

[Starmill]

Many of my 'soundbites' are responses to out of context and selective quoting.

To summarise the soundbites. I have deep knowledge from my 30-year career that much of our UK infrastructure assets are on the brink. There is also anecdotal evidence that the current appraisal system undervalues smaller regional investments. A step change in capital investment is required to avert serious problems and to deliver a more regionally balanced economy. Much of the position we find ourselves in is a consequence of the UK having low capital investment compared to similar nations over the past 40-45 years. The current structure will not deliver and is hampered by the sheer volume of red tape generated by an excessive number of public bodies.

You believe the current appraisal system works reasonably well and doesn't need much change. PS I agree re carbon / environmental!

I do agree strongly about existing assets being in poor condition and needing much bigger capital budgets for renewals. Unfortunately while this obviously does bring opportunity to sync up improvements with renewals, I think personally it also points towards a maintenance and renewals budget that has not been big enough to deal with the backlogs arising out of worsening climate and in some cases historical underspend, especially in the period 1995 - 2005 but other times too. Unfortunately I think that may imply there's wisdom in less enhancing and more renewing, but this is very unpalatable indeed politically. I don't think changes to the appraisal framework can easily influence that unfortunately.

That is my main "complaint" too. Carbon/Greenhouse/general environment not given nearly enough weighting in business cases/BCR calculations etc.

The 2023 exercise to revalue atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions uses the market-based values derived from emissions trading. Unfortunately I think this is producing poorer results from schemes that genuinely save carbon over their lifetime than using the actual outturn "values" from climate breakdown risk. The problem is that the market values are consistent across government and I can understand why they want to take that approach, and atmospheric carbon doesn't only come from transport emissions, so we do need something consistent to monetise carbon as. But clearly the results of the emissions trading approach are flawed.

The review is available here, although I admit it can be incredibly dry reading:https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...arbon-values-used-for-modelling-purposes-2023

 

[GRALISTAIR]

But civil servants who are very good at getting what they want, especially when weak or ever-changing politicians head up ministries. Surely the whole appeal of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" lies in how far we believe there's an awful lot of truth behind the writing especially as far as Sir Humphrey and Arnold go.

Neil Kinnock was once interviewed and asked about Yes Minister/PM. He said that like all good Parody there is quite a large element of truth to it. Unfortunately (and yes I know I am biased) far too few STEM people (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) people go into politics and are able to call BS on the Civil Service when required.

 

[Wolfie]

Neil Kinnock was once interviewed and asked about Yes Minister/PM. He said that like all good Parody there is quite a large element of truth to it. Unfortunately (and yes I know I am biased) far too few STEM people (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) people go into politics and are able to call BS on the Civil Service when required.

As a recently retired Civil Servant with a STEM background l would not disagree while noting the major influence those who are in the system have. The drive is towards evidence-based decision-making whenever possible.

 

[deltic]

I do agree strongly about existing assets being in poor condition and needing much bigger capital budgets for renewals. Unfortunately while this obviously does bring opportunity to sync up improvements with renewals, I think personally it also points towards a maintenance and renewals budget that has not been big enough to deal with the backlogs arising out of worsening climate and in some cases historical underspend, especially in the period 1995 - 2005 but other times too. Unfortunately I think that may imply there's wisdom in less enhancing and more renewing, but this is very unpalatable indeed politically. I don't think changes to the appraisal framework can easily influence that unfortunately.


The 2023 exercise to revalue atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions uses the market-based values derived from emissions trading. Unfortunately I think this is producing poorer results from schemes that genuinely save carbon over their lifetime than using the actual outturn "values" from climate breakdown risk. The problem is that the market values are consistent across government and I can understand why they want to take that approach, and atmospheric carbon doesn't only come from transport emissions, so we do need something consistent to monetise carbon as. But clearly the results of the emissions trading approach are flawed.

The review is available here, although I admit it can be incredibly dry reading:https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...arbon-values-used-for-modelling-purposes-2023

Arent the values used in appraisals those set out in the BEIS paper https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-policy-appraisal which are far higher. The BEIS numbers being based on the price required to reach net zero targets and are not the market traded values.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

As a recently retired Civil Servant with a STEM background l would not disagree while noting the major influence those who are in the system have. The drive is towards evidence-based decision-making whenever possible.

Comforting to know- at least to me it is!

 

[Starmill]

Arent the values used in appraisals those set out in the BEIS paper https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-policy-appraisal which are far higher. The BEIS numbers being based on the price required to reach net zero targets and are not the market traded values.

They are but for example electric cars are considered to have "tradeable" emissions, so are measured by saving the lower value, which is a bit of a fantasy, but there it is. It's not a massive point, but it doesn't make it easy to favour electrified mass public transport (even though it's meant to do that on paper).

Some people would argue that the as-was BEIS values are much too low too. The old pre-2011 approach of wondering out loud what damage each unit of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions would do was not considered to be evidence-focused enough, but the evidence in the new case is rightly open to scrutiny because we don't really know what climate breakdown will do to the country. For example, it's a near-impossible task to forecast a tipping point.

 

[eldomtom2]

Of course not. But having been consented the scheme plainly stands well apart from any other proposals - unless and until either the consent is withdrawn or expires unused. The other side of that is that even a smal modification to what was consented still involves some very substantial work to get any amendment through.

It's worth remembering that we do not live in a technocracy. Any future government will be looking at the political as well as the practical cost of reinstating any part of Phase 2a.

What I'm saying is that your point is completely incorrect. Nobody is working on the assumption that they government will approve any further parts of HS2 unless and until that happens. You're free to either leave that there or try to go into further detail about why you originally said so.

Obviously I don't know what's going on internally. But my impression from posts on this forum is that at least some people in the industry are overly optimistic about the chances of a Phase 2a reinstatement.

 

[HSTEd]

Arent the values used in appraisals those set out in the BEIS paper https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-policy-appraisal which are far higher. The BEIS numbers being based on the price required to reach net zero targets and are not the market traded values.

Ofcourse, since the net zero target numbers are widely considered to be junk in climate related academia, the entire system is likely a victim of Garbage-in-Garbage-out.

 

[6Gman]

Politicians do have the power to change the rules, and occasionally they use it.

Two examples are monetary policy being set independently by by the Bank of England, introduced by Gordon Brown, and official economic forecasts being prepared independently by the Office for Budget Responsibility, introduced by George Osborne.

Politicians could rewrite what is in the Green Book, and change planning policy, if they chose to do so. Labour are talking about planning reform: it will be interesting to see what they propose in their General Election manifesto, and, if elected, whether they deliver it.

Indeed politicians are constantly changing planning policy!

 

[Wolfie]

Indeed politicians are constantly changing policy!

Fixed that for you.... The Daily Heil test at its finest....

Short-term political considerations absolutely screw long-term planning particularly when you have a struggling Government/ruling party.

 

[Xavi]

Indeed politicians are constantly changing planning policy!

Tinkering at the edges, nothing material since 1990 Act.

 

[6Gman]

Tinkering at the edges, nothing material since 1990 Act.

National Planning Policy Framework?

(And its frequent revisions)

 

[zwk500]

Apologies for some of these late replies it was difficult to sift out some of the more personal conversations going on. It's clear one big problem with railways is simply how much they cost, and that many people can't accept that is the cost. There's another thread on why things cost so much, so that discussion can stay out there. It's also clear another issue is emotion - primarily political and heritage. This causes proponents to overlook problems and opponents to downplay benefits. Neither of these are easy things to fix.
One thing I couldn't see much discussed here is the 60-year appraisal period for whole-life costs of new schemes - I think some of these costs (such as land acquisition and a certain proportion of station and infrastructure costs) could be amortised over a much longer period, which would help give the benefits longer to repay the costs. I also think much greater weight should be given to the ongoing costs/benefits rather than lumping in the capex for every scheme.

The bus notwithstanding, even If I were travelling from Newquay to Penzance, I'd still probably get the train all the way.

This underlines the problem - you want a train, no ifs, no buts.

It's difficult to pinpoint exactly why a similar town with good rail connections will tend to do better than one without, but they seem to.

Causation and correlation are not necessarily the same thing, and economic geographies are fiendishly difficult to isolate individual causes. It'd also be interesting to see, e.g., a metric for this - GVA/capita/service option or something.

We need to look at Uckfield - Lewes again !

The reason journey time improvements weren't a significant benefit of Lewes-Uckfield is that the train simply wouldn't save that much time. Outside of a peak hour at each end of the day the A26/A27 is completely fine between Brighton and Uckfield and the majority of train journeys will be to London, which Lewes already has a faster link to. Also the 2008 study was looking at the old Hamsey link so cross-Lewes journeys were penalised by train.

BML2 is an unhelpful distraction, what should have been looked at is a route branching off at Glynde running via Ringmer (which is rapidly becoming a small town) and then rejoining the old alignment into Uckfield north of Isfield. It protects the villages (and the Lavender line) while serving Brighton-Lewes-Weald journeys, gives Falmer/Moulscoombe direct London trains, avoids the reversal and adds a long-standing dormitory town to the network. But it never even got thought of because it's not marked 'dismantled rlwy' on an old OS map and now Ringmer's filling in the most obvious gap for a station (between the Green Man pub and the Secondary School) with yet more housing.

Supporting what their constituents want is their job.

For most MPs, supporting their party seems to be their job. Although it should be pointed out that the majority of MP's constituents want lower taxes and lower train fares. So they are serving their constituents' interests by insisting on robust appraisal of public investment.

Bear in mind that frequency has consistently proven to be important for ridership...

Important yes but not the only factor. You'll note that most BCRs test a range of frequency options and in general it's a law of diminishing returns as there are only so many people who can get the trains, and once they're all on board there's nobody left to benefit but there's still a unit and crew being paid to run.