The differences between road and rail BCAs (if any)?

[Kingston Dan]

Although I used to work in the transport sector (but not in a technical capacity) but not any more I'm intrigued by the debate on here (basically 'crayonistas' v 'experts'). I completely accept that we shouldn't simply be reopening rail lines willy nilly and Altnabreach's criteria seem entirely reasonable. But I also think we are in a climate emergency and lockdown has shown a new way forward of traffic and pollution free towns. It's now clear we have to have a massive modal shift away from cars and road vehicles and towards more sustainable forms of transport.

I was always of the understanding that there were more 'friendly' criteria for road schemes (because they were considered a public good and had no farebox) in comparison with rail. For example the borders rail project had to bear the cost of the various road improvements (not only getting rid of the historic level crossings but also responsible for a massive upgrading of the city by-pass at Sheriffhall).

I've googled a variety of studies to see what the differences are (see below) - but they're pretty old.

What I'd like to know is - what are the BCA differences (if any) between UK government analysis of road/rail/other public transport schemes and what account of climate/biodiversity/environment factors? Because I can't believe the billions spent on the Black Cat roundabout upgrade has any relationship to the benefits of some of the smaller rail schemes that get rubbished as 'crayonista' here.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.201.3306&rep=rep1&type=pdf

file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/Fathy_Al-Tony_Thesis_1995.pdf

 

[squizzler]

You are more or less correct in your basic hypothesis. The technology of roads, cars and lorries have not changed dramatically over the decades, nor the effects on society, so the link you produce from year 2000-03 is fairly current. Although nowadays carbon reduction will probably be given greater primacy today, and we are becoming more aware of the harms done to the human body and mind, our society and the environment by the various externalities.

Whilst cost benefit analysis might be improving at a glacial pace, the highway promoters have to operate outside the rules to achieve their desired outcome. If the payback does not justify construction - fittingly for the post truth age - they can make up another factor to tip the balance. To wit a proposed set of alterations to the A9, a highway in the Highlands, was uneconomic, so the Scottish government invoked a hitherto unrecognised phenomenon called 'driver frustration' that afflicts the current route. The elimination of which would accrue a value of £430 million, apparently £86 million more than collision reduction, a recognised cost in highway analysis.

The WEBs of the A9 dualling project were calculated as £210.4 million. Taking these into account, the project would return 89 pence in benefits for every pound spent by the Scottish Government.

In addition to WEBs, the Case for Investment highlights opinion research conducted with businesses located near the route of A9 which “…indicated that increased attractiveness of the area for investment, reduced transport costs and improved business confidence were the principal benefits of dualling the A9.”

This would usually represent the conclusion of the transport appraisal process. However, the Scottish Government commissioned consultants to develop a method for placing a monetary value on “removing driver frustration” as part of the A9 dualling project. This is separate from, and additional to, the monetary values already calculated for reduced journey times and collisions. The figures used in these calculations are not publicly available, although information on the method is available in a conference paper produced by the researchers.

 

[waverley47]

Right, this is where I can offer some knowledge, but it's more complex so bear with.

Firstly, a rail project costs a lot, so you want to get it right first time. Doing a full BCA done by a professional team costs about ten grand and can take upwards of six months to do right, whereas a road BCA can usually be done in the back room of a council building in a couple of weeks. All this to get that special magic number.

Secondly, Altnabreac's criteria aren't too far off the money; but at the end of the day we just do any BCA we are given, even if we can already predict the outcome (I'll give you two guesses as to the study for the borders extension to Carlisle for example).

To do a study we need perfect costings, which take a very long time to get right. Additionally, we have to account for overspend and unforseen problems. We need a selection of train frequencies, stopping patterns and line speeds, we need a list of stations (harder than it sounds) and we need a detailed map and a lot of time. With those things we can do a study.

It takes us a long time to work out potential traffic flows, which is the main part of the BCA. For various stations, there are certain calculations to work out the proportion of people who would use a given station. For a purely hypothetical example, building a new tube station on Old Kent Road might attract people walking, cycling and bussing to the station. People who live within five minutes walk count as 0.8 of a person, people who are further than that but under eight minutes cycle might count as 0.6 etc, for a grand total of people who live within range, who would ever reasonably be expected to use the station.

Then using that number you can extrapolate out the journeys made to a given destination, with it's 'pull' calculated by the population but also census data and working patterns in the city. But, some people who live in the station catchment might find it quicker or simpler to drive or bus to a third location and travel from there, so you have to account for alternatives (think overground along the bakerloo extension).

A simple BCA will take into account the costs and journeys made over a given time frame, and then give you a value. For rail, we have to look at any changes in working patterns or travel that would arise from building or not building a given route, so you have to count that in. You have to consider changes in age, in land use, in economic forecast.

Doing a BCA takes a lot of time and effort, because it's very complex (and rightly so). You don't want to pass on building a railway that is needed, but you also have to prove due diligence before spending money and getting boots on the ground. It can be incredibly frustrating on here, having an idea and a project that would appear to benefit the community, but nothing seeming to move forward, but it takes time.

 

[hwl]

You are more or less correct in your basic hypothesis. The technology of roads, cars and lorries have not changed dramatically over the decades, nor the effects on society, so the link you produce from year 2000-03 is fairly current. Although nowadays carbon reduction will probably be given greater primacy today, and we are becoming more aware of the harms done to the human body and mind, our society and the environment by the various externalities.

Whilst cost benefit analysis might be improving at a glacial pace, the highway promoters have to operate outside the rules to achieve their desired outcome. If the payback does not justify construction - fittingly for the post truth age - they can make up another factor to tip the balance. To wit a proposed set of alterations to the A9, a highway in the Highlands, was uneconomic, so the Scottish government fabricated a hitherto unrecognised phenomenon called 'driver frustration' that afflicts the current route. The elimination of which would accrue a value of £430 million, apparently £86 million more than collision reduction, a recognised cost in highway analysis.

They do have a 40mph single carriage way HGV limit in Scotland which can be frustrating!

 

[Taunton]

A basic difference in costing of transport projects is rail includes the capital cost of rolling stock, whereas road does not.

One thing to bear in mind is that, despite the beliefs of advocates of the various schemes, road and rail journeys are generally not interchangeable. A few may be, but not many, and for many schemes it's not enough to identify. They are separate markets. You see the same with cycle schemes, purported to transfer users from car to bike, when you analyse afterwards it's principally new generated use, or transfer from bus. Meanwhile any reduction in car journeys caused by throttling roads principally causes drivers to go somewhere else, as owners of town centre shops where car-unfriendly schemes have been put in place know only too well to their cost.

The flyover at Black Cat on the A1 near Huntingdon will cost nothing like billions, although it might do if Network Rail ran the project.

 

[Bald Rick]

Having written such cases and studied many others...

In theory there is no difference in the asssesmsent criteria. All projects - road, rail, indeed any capital project - should use exactly the same methodology which is the the Treasury ‘Green Book’. Transport projects of any mode must assess the inputs to the analysis using the Transport Analysis Guidance, which is is regularly updated, most recently in October. It’s all here, and there’s a lot of it... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag

I had not heard that the Scottish Government manipulated the rules to get the A9 upgrade over the line, but then the Scottish Government have form in that respect by doing the same for the Borders line (or more specifically, just not bothering to update the BCR when the costs went up considerably). I’m not aware of any such examples in England, although that’s doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.

A few points that need stating.

1) it is the same assessment criteria, and therefore a level playing field.

2) it wasn’t always so. Until 1997/98, rail schemes could not use non financial benefits, and had to generate a financial return. A good one too (at least 7%).

3) most road schemes taken forward with DfT money have far, far higher BCRs than most rail schemes. The reason for this is simple. Most road schemes are there to deal with congestion, where there are regular and significant delays to road users. The Black Cat is a great example. The project will save motorists up to 10 minutes for each trip (from personal experience, that could be quite an underestimate for some times of the day). There are also significant benefits in fuel saving, pollution, and accident avoidance. Given the number of vehicles that use it each day, the benefits add up very quickly. This is also the case for some rail schemes, but not for reopening lines in relatively rural parts of the country, where the passengers just aren’t there in any numbers.

4) beware of falling into the trap about needing massive mode switch to rail to reduce emissions and a sustainable transport. This is only true if a) the railway is electrific and b) road vehicles continue to be powered by fossil fuel. It is auite likely that in the next decade or so the most polluting mode of transport in rural areas will be the train.

 

[furnessvale]

There are also significant benefits in fuel saving, pollution, and accident avoidance. Given the number of vehicles that use it each day, the benefits add up very quickly. This is also the case for some rail schemes, but not for reopening lines in relatively rural parts of the country, where the passengers just aren’t there in any numbers.

It used to be the case that a railway scheme that reduced road traffic had the lost fuel duty to the exchequer counted against it as a disbenefit. Is that still the case?

If so, surely fuel saving in a road scheme should equally count against it rather than a benefit.

 

[Taunton]

Until 1997/98, rail schemes could not use non financial benefits, and had to generate a financial return. A good one too (at least 7%).

In that case my university thesis, which predated this, is all wrong, and the stuff about Cost Benefit Analysis and specific non-financial Social Return in Investment which I wrote there about the Victoria Line approvals having gone through this in the late 1950s, based in considerable part on what had been done for the M1 motorway earlier in the decade, and indeed some pioneering analysis in the late 1930s, must have been all made up.

I believe you are writing about New Approach to Appraisal 1998 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Approach_to_Appraisal which was just a tidying up and restating of all this.

 

[Bald Rick]

It used to be the case that a railway scheme that reduced road traffic had the lost fuel duty to the exchequer counted against it as a disbenefit. Is that still the case?

If so, surely fuel saving in a road scheme should equally count against it rather than a benefit.

Yes it counts the same way.

In that case my university thesis is all wrong and the stuff about Cost Benefit Analysis and specific non-financial Social Return in Investment which I wrote there about the Victoria Line approvals having gone through this in the late 1950s, based in considerable part on what had been done for the M1 motorway earlier in the decade, and indeed some pioneering analysis in the late 1930s, must have been all made up.

I believe you are writing about New Approach to Appraisal 1998 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Approach_to_Appraisal which was just a tidying up and restating of all this.

You are quite correct. When I said ‘rail’ I should instea dhave said ‘BR’; certainly the projects I was dealing with in the mid 90s could not take into account non-financial benefits. This all changed with the new approach to appraisal.

 

[edwin_m]

3) most road schemes taken forward with DfT money have far, far higher BCRs than most rail schemes. The reason for this is simple. Most road schemes are there to deal with congestion, where there are regular and significant delays to road users. The Black Cat is a great example. The project will save motorists up to 10 minutes for each trip (from personal experience, that could be quite an underestimate for some times of the day). There are also significant benefits in fuel saving, pollution, and accident avoidance. Given the number of vehicles that use it each day, the benefits add up very quickly. This is also the case for some rail schemes, but not for reopening lines in relatively rural parts of the country, where the passengers just aren’t there in any numbers.

But do these calculations also take account of increased traffic due to induced demand?

 

[Taunton]

But do these calculations also take account of increased traffic due to induced demand?

Very much so, just like all projects. Crossrail will be an interesting proof of how much is induced (a considerable amount I believe), how much is diverted from other rail (also considerable, but no extra revenue) and how much diverted from cars (not a lot I expect, they are different markets).

 

[edwin_m]

Very much so, just like all projects. Crossrail will be an interesting proof of how much is induced (a considerable amount I believe), how much is diverted from other rail (also considerable, but no extra revenue) and how much diverted from cars (not a lot I expect, they are different markets).

I was referring to whether road scheme assessments take account of induced demand, including mode shift from public transport to car. It's generally a good thing for rail to attract more passengers, even if they are new journeys as these represent economic or quality of life benefits, at least until crowding becomes a problem. But with road it's another story, as if a new road attracts more cars it may nullify the benefits that were claimed for it.

 

[squizzler]

I know that Wales (and other places since, I think) have legislated that all development should encourage shift to active travel. Unfortunately this simply means that the inspectors report on highway enlargements just includes a line saying “the presumed benefits of the scheme are deemed to warrant dispensation under active travel legislation.”

Actually this is interesting, since it occurs to me that legislation which appears to mandate active travel is easier to dodge than actually assigning price on each journey switching from active to passive travel modes within the BCA model and that would destroy the business case from inside.

 

[Starmill]

It's also worth noting that WebTAG is for England. There's subtle difference in WelTAG for Wales and STAG for Scotland.

 

[Taunton]

It's generally a good thing for rail to attract more passengers, even if they are new journeys as these represent economic or quality of life benefits, at least until crowding becomes a problem. But with road it's another story, as if a new road attracts more cars it may nullify the benefits that were claimed for it.

My old topic again. Although there might now be more road users and the journey time is not reduced, the benefit is there to all those additional users, who would not have been induced unless there was an advantage to them (and possibly to residents of nearby places now bypassed).

For example, there are all the simplistic comments about the M25 round London, being a car park, etc. Apart from this being wrong, assuredly if it really was like that people would not turn onto it. They are there because they perceive, generally accurately, that notwithstanding any delay, expected or otherwise, it is the most efficient routing or travel mode they can take.

 

[edwin_m]

My old topic again. Although there might now be more road users and the journey time is not reduced, the benefit is there to all those additional users, who would not have been induced unless there was an advantage to them (and possibly to residents of nearby places now bypassed).

For example, there are all the simplistic comments about the M25 round London, being a car park, etc. Apart from this being wrong, assuredly if it really was like that people would not turn onto it. They are there because they perceive, generally accurately, that notwithstanding any delay, expected or otherwise, it is the most efficient routing or travel mode they can take.

To me that sounds like a reason to change the process. I've read somewhere of suggestions that very small time savings to a very large number of road users should be left out of the calculations.

 

[Bald Rick]

To me that sounds like a reason to change the process. I've read somewhere of suggestions that very small time savings to a very large number of road users should be left out of the calculations.

Yep that was suggested for rail too, in which case we wouldn’t have had a whole host of improvements!

 

[BRblue]

They do have a 40mph single carriage way HGV limit in Scotland which can be frustrating!

Unless something has changed in the last 15 years I'm not aware of... that HGV speed limit applies to the whole of the UK.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unless something has changed in the last 15 years I'm not aware of... that HGV speed limit applies to the whole of the UK.

Lifted to 50 in April 2015. Except in Scotland, where it is 40, except an exception on the single carriageway parts of the A9 where it is also 50.

 

[deltic]

Right, this is where I can offer some knowledge, but it's more complex so bear with.

Firstly, a rail project costs a lot, so you want to get it right first time. Doing a full BCA done by a professional team costs about ten grand and can take upwards of six months to do right, whereas a road BCA can usually be done in the back room of a council building in a couple of weeks. All this to get that special magic number.

S

A professional team spending 6 months to do a benefit cost appraisal for £10k! I think a few 00s may be missing. Few councils will do their own road appraisals, the transport models are typically built and run by consultants and will also easily cost 6 figures unless its a simple junction improvement.

 

[deltic]

Although I used to work in the transport sector (but not in a technical capacity) but not any more I'm intrigued by the debate on here (basically 'crayonistas' v 'experts'). I completely accept that we shouldn't simply be reopening rail lines willy nilly and Altnabreach's criteria seem entirely reasonable. But I also think we are in a climate emergency and lockdown has shown a new way forward of traffic and pollution free towns. It's now clear we have to have a massive modal shift away from cars and road vehicles and towards more sustainable forms of transport.

I was always of the understanding that there were more 'friendly' criteria for road schemes (because they were considered a public good and had no farebox) in comparison with rail. For example the borders rail project had to bear the cost of the various road improvements (not only getting rid of the historic level crossings but also responsible for a massive upgrading of the city by-pass at Sheriffhall).

I've googled a variety of studies to see what the differences are (see below) - but they're pretty old.

What I'd like to know is - what are the BCA differences (if any) between UK government analysis of road/rail/other public transport schemes and what account of climate/biodiversity/environment factors? Because I can't believe the billions spent on the Black Cat roundabout upgrade has any relationship to the benefits of some of the smaller rail schemes that get rubbished as 'crayonista' here.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.201.3306&rep=rep1&type=pdf

file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/Fathy_Al-Tony_Thesis_1995.pdf

In theory there is little difference between appraisals for different forms of transport in respect of the main factor which is journey time improvements. Rail will also take into account crowding relief and there are nuances about how access/egress times to stations, waiting time, quality of trains and stations are all taken into account. The biggest problem that you highlight is the price of carbon. Given we are meant to be going carbon neutral by 2050 one would expect the price of carbon to rise exponentially between now and then to change behaviours and reach the target. In reality it is significantly underpriced in appraisals - if it wasnt you would see far fewer road projects and heavy infrastructure rail projects would also struggle to get approved. Instead we would be going for cycling schemes and trolleybuses.

 

[waverley47]

In theory there is no difference in the asssesmsent criteria. All projects - road, rail, indeed any capital project - should use exactly the same methodology which is the the Treasury ‘Green Book

Ding ding ding. Everything undertaken by a public authority should be done according to the magic green book. In theory. In practice, the way that the public interacts with road and rail improvements are very different.

The majority of road schemes we see are either small local roads or access as part of a redevelopment, and as such, these are subsumed into the final overall cost. From my immediate area, the development at Shawfair was a wholesale building complex, and remodelling roads throughout the area is pennies compared to the overall budget of the scheme. These roads are chopped and changed constantly all over the country, and in practice, we never see the BCA for these.

For main roads, a la A9 or the Heads of the Valleys Road, theoretically, there should be a BCA for the whole scheme. In many cases, these are undertaken in stages or at different times as different sections of the scheme are complete. For example, we did one for the doubling of the A1 over the border, and this was undertaken in stages over about three years. The public is unlikely to see the end result of any of these, unless it is large or controversial enough.

Rail is different by virtue of the infrastructure. Building one line may be simple, but it connects to a network that is very complex. The costings, civils and end result need far more of a thorough investigation, take longer and require much longer a lead time. At the end of the day, while road and rail (and indeed anything else) should be studied the same way, it is often the way that this information is used that is different, so the public tends to interact differently with the results.

A professional team spending 6 months to do a benefit cost appraisal for £10k! I think a few 00s may be missing. Few councils will do their own appraisals, the transport models are typically built and run by consultants and will also easily cost 6 figures unless its a simple junction improvement.

Oh indeed, that was bad explaining on my part. They cost upwards of ten grand for starters, our Levenmouth one for example took us about a week and cost about twice that. A bigger one, for example the building of the A2B line cost about thirty times that much. I dread to imagine what the costings for the HS2 study were..

 

[hwl]

Lifted to 50 in April 2015. Except in Scotland, where it is 40, except an exception on the single carriageway parts of the A9 where it is also 50.

Sitting behind a BP tanker* on the A82 is a good reminder.

*Fitted with smart connected speed limiters

 

[Bald Rick]

Sitting behind a BP tanker* on the A82 is a good reminder.

*Fitted with smart connected speed limiters

I’m not behind it for long, except for the one bit around Lomond

 

[BRblue]

Lifted to 50 in April 2015. Except in Scotland, where it is 40, except an exception on the single carriageway parts of the A9 where it is also 50.

Was it... I stand corrected. Shame they couldn't of done that when I was driving.