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

[Xavi]

National Planning Policy Framework?

(And its frequent revisions)

That’s a Conservative political vision, it’s not an Act of Parliament.

 

[simonw]

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.

Once you get to 60 years ( in fact well before that) the impact of compounding means the discount factor applied is so large that there is little to be gained in extending it.

One could argue that 60 years is too long given the difficult,of forecasting that far forward.

 

[yorksrob]

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.



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

That's a good point about amortisation about costs, however I think you'll find that most people when taking a train will tend to get the train all the way (if there's an option) rather than changing modes. If that's a problem, its a rather widespread one (think of the distain for RRB's).

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.

It would indeed. The fact that no one's attempted to come up with one suggests a lack of willingness to address the issue.

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.

Being able to get about in the rush hour when the roads are clogged is one of rail's USB's. The fact that the main road is bad when people want to use it is a justification for rail.

I'd also disagree that passenger journeys are so London-centric as to remove the case for through rail. The Coastway services and their enduring popularity prove that not everyone wants to go to London all the time.

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.

Actually a diversion to the West of Ringmer would be a good idea and get around the problematic section at Lewes. I'd rejoin the old route further south though.

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.

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.

They're obviously not doing their job then as we never seem to get the lower fares, only the price hikes.

 

[zwk500]

That's a good point about amortisation about costs, however I think you'll find that most people when taking a train will tend to get the train all the way (if there's an option) rather than changing modes. If that's a problem, its a rather widespread one (think of the distain for RRB's).

It is a problem - buses are the friend of the railway, the car is the enemy/competitor.

It would indeed. The fact that no one's attempted to come up with one suggests a lack of willingness to address the issue.

Or the fact that people don't think it's actually a particularly informative statistic to pay for it.

Being able to get about in the rush hour when the roads are clogged is one of rail's USB's. The fact that the main road is bad when people want to use it is a justification for rail.

Not when it clears pretty quickly. I've driven (or been driven by my parents) through Lewes rush hour for 20 years and the amount of people you'd move to the train isn't enough to justify the costs of a mainline railway.

I'd also disagree that passenger journeys are so London-centric as to remove the case for through rail. The Coastway services and their enduring popularity prove that not everyone wants to go to London all the time.

London services on the coastway justify 8/12, Brighton services on the east coastway justify 3/4. And the London trains are more crowded than the Brighton trains, regularly.

Actually a diversion to the West of Ringmer would be a good idea and get around the problematic section at Lewes. I'd rejoin the old route further south though.

Not to the west of Ringmer, there's a big hill in the way and nowhere especially sensible to put a station. The National Park boundary also includes Glynde and comes right up to the southern edge of Ringmer - you need to go east.

They're obviously not doing their job then as we never seem to get the lower fares, only the price hikes.

MPs have many roles and responsibilities, many of which conflict all the time. However there's an opportunity to conduct their review coming up in the next 9 months (probably much sooner)...

 

[Starmill]

I think you'll find that most people when taking a train will tend to get the train all the way (if there's an option) rather than changing modes. If that's a problem, its a rather widespread one (think of the distain for RRB's).

I'm afraid this is simply a misunderstanding. Most people would prefer a direct bus for their whole journey, with a shorter journey time, over a train with a longer one, and potentially a change of trains. You personally have stated many times you're in the latter group, which nobody should criticise you over as it's totally your personal choice, but it would appear it's strongly skewing your views.

 

[deltic]

That’s a Conservative political vision, it’s not an Act of Parliament.

The law requires the National Planning Policy Framework to be taken into account in local authority development plans

Once you get to 60 years ( in fact well before that) the impact of compounding means the discount factor applied is so large that there is little to be gained in extending it.

One could argue that 60 years is too long given the difficult,of forecasting that far forward.

100 year apprisals have been used for some very major infrastructure projects

 

[simonw]

The law requires the National Planning Policy Framework to be taken into account in local authority development plans


100 year apprisals have been used for some very major infrastructure projects

I know. I think it very odd, given the impact on discount rates and are inability to accurately forecast that far ahead.

 

[Xavi]

The law requires the National Planning Policy Framework to be taken into account in local authority development plans

It is not law and (if taken into account) certainly doesn’t simplify the 1990 Act which is law and a major part of the reason why any development or infrastructure is expensive in the UK.

 

[HSTEd]

The National Planning Policy framework hasn't worked properly in years, if it ever did.

It appears largely to be a tool to justify generating reams of paper and never actually doing anything these days.

 

[yorksrob]

It is a problem - buses are the friend of the railway, the car is the enemy/competitor.

Within reason. They're not really an adequate substitute though, which is the mistake many on here make.

Or the fact that people don't think it's actually a particularly informative statistic to pay for it.

I don't think anyone could describe such a statistic as not informative. More likely those in power wouldn't like the implications of what such a study might say.

Not when it clears pretty quickly. I've driven (or been driven by my parents) through Lewes rush hour for 20 years and the amount of people you'd move to the train isn't enough to justify the costs of a mainline railway.

London services on the coastway justify 8/12, Brighton services on the east coastway justify 3/4. And the London trains are more crowded than the Brighton trains, regularly.

3/4 carriages often full and standing and often twice an hour. And that's before you count the people using London trains for non-London journeys.

Not to the west of Ringmer, there's a big hill in the way and nowhere especially sensible to put a station. The National Park boundary also includes Glynde and comes right up to the southern edge of Ringmer - you need to go east.

MPs have many roles and responsibilities, many of which conflict all the time. However there's an opportunity to conduct their review coming up in the next 9 months (probably much sooner)...

I bow to your knowledge of the local topography.

I'm afraid this is simply a misunderstanding. Most people would prefer a direct bus for their whole journey, with a shorter journey time, over a train with a longer one, and potentially a change of trains. You personally have stated many times you're in the latter group, which nobody should criticise you over as it's totally your personal choice, but it would appear it's strongly skewing your views.

That probably is true for some people for short local journeys. Unlikely for longer ones.

 

[Starmill]

That probably is true for some people for short local journeys. Unlikely for longer ones.

Personally I don't really see what the problem is with a bus journey of 60 - 90 minutes. There are plenty of examples of these working successfully at filling gaps where the railway cannot provide or doesn't exist. I don't think it makes sense to rebuild railway infrastructure to serve these just because, rather than looking at improvements to the bus service and brining up the subsidy to the English bus industry so it's more in line with the railway.

 

[zwk500]

That probably is true for some people for short local journeys. Unlikely for longer ones.

It's notable that in countries where buses are used for longer routes, they are coaches (or something much closer to it). Put the appropriate vehicle on the appropriate route and give it a bit of effort with a decent interior and people wouldn't be quite so put out by the idea of a bus.
Similar thing with train interiors really. It doesn't take much to put a decent vinyl or leather seat with decent footspace and a comfortable cabin. Just requires more than the absolute minimum effort to be made.

 

[The exile]

Personally I don't really see what the problem is with a bus journey of 60 - 90 minutes. There are plenty of examples of these working successfully at filling gaps where the railway cannot provide or doesn't exist. I don't think it makes sense to rebuild railway infrastructure to serve these just because, rather than looking at improvements to the bus service and brining up the subsidy to the English bus industry so it's more in line with the railway.

There is probably nothing wrong with bus journeys of that length (provided a suitable vehicle interior is provided). What is needed desperately is the ffull integration (both bus to bus and bus to and from train) of:
Fares
Ticketing
Timetabling
Connection guarantees / “get you home”
Plus long term service stability. One of the great advantage of railed transport for passengers planning their lives (as opposed to a trip to see Auntie Mabel next week) is the fact that it is not easy to move the rails- so you’ve got a pretty good idea of what the service is going to look like in 5 - 10 years time (ok - not times and frequency - but places served). Not so with a bus.

 

[yorksrob]

Personally I don't really see what the problem is with a bus journey of 60 - 90 minutes. There are plenty of examples of these working successfully at filling gaps where the railway cannot provide or doesn't exist. I don't think it makes sense to rebuild railway infrastructure to serve these just because, rather than looking at improvements to the bus service and brining up the subsidy to the English bus industry so it's more in line with the railway.

I'd like to see more subsidy for the bus service, certainly to maintain current standards.

60 minutes + is a bit of a stretch though

It's notable that in countries where buses are used for longer routes, they are coaches (or something much closer to it). Put the appropriate vehicle on the appropriate route and give it a bit of effort with a decent interior and people wouldn't be quite so put out by the idea of a bus.
Similar thing with train interiors really. It doesn't take much to put a decent vinyl or leather seat with decent footspace and a comfortable cabin. Just requires more than the absolute minimum effort to be made.

There's the reliability aspect as well though. Bus services have a bit of a "here today, gone tomorrow" quality to them, and there's the traffic and the number of stops etc. Then for those of us over a certain age, there's the toilet issue.

I must admit, I've never understood why leather/leatherette seating somehow denotes quality over moquette

 

[zwk500]

There's the reliability aspect as well though.

Bus services are generally easier to keep running, and don't get the same 'all stop' delays trains can be subject to. You can build in a bit of a performance buffer at major stops like interchanges to recover some of the general traffic degradation.

Bus services have a bit of a "here today, gone tomorrow" quality to them, and there's the traffic and the number of stops etc. Then for those of us over a certain age, there's the toilet issue.

Although not suitable for everybody, many long-distance coaches have toilets on them that aren't really that different from the non-accessible toilets you get on trains. Traffic congestion and number of stops are problems that affect trains as well, but have easier solutions (bus lanes/gates, 'express' services, etc).

I must admit, I've never understood why leather/leatherette seating somehow denotes quality over moquette

Part of it is a little bit of snobbishness I suspect - Leather seats were always the mark of a luxury car. However Leather/leatherette seems to me to last longer and show less wear while also not absorbing as much dirt as fabric. Comfort is far more related to the padding than the covering though.