Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
An earlier report by SACTRA (1999) had concluded that , because of less than
optimal pricing, the form of analysis undertaken to date might not reflect the full
extent of economic benefits. DfT's initial response was to extend the appraisal
framework to include local economic effects in regeneration areas. Research was
also commissioned to explore the issue more generally (DfT 2005k). A key factor
identified was the higher productivity which firms enjoyed where they were clustered
spatially (so-called 'agglomeration economies') and the contribution which transport
improvements made in such areas ,not merely to firms who benefited directly but by
all others who benefited from increased agglomeration.
Eddington's study took account of these agglomeration effects and also explored
the implications of incorporating estimates of the monetised value of impacts such as
journey time reliability and carbon emissions which had not been possible before. By
analysing a sample of nearly 200 projects covering a wide range by size, location and
mode he was able to conclude that overall benefits would increase by up to 50% in
individual cases.
Eddington did not set out to propose a particular investment programme or to
adjudicate on particular schemes - rather to establish the principles which should
govern such work. He was particularly concerned that assessments should be cross-
modal, consider urban and inter-urban schemes on a like basis and take account of
the contribution of small as well as large-scale interventions. Nevertheless his overall
message was that there was a strong case for targeted new infrastructure:
Government should therefore continue to deliver, together with the private
sector, sustained transport investment. There are good returns across the priority
areas, but smaller projects which unlock pinch-points, variable infrastructure
schemes to support public transport in urban areas and international gateway
surface access projects are likely to offer the very highest returns, sometimes
higher than £10 for every pound spent. However large projects, with speculative
benefits, and relying on untested technology, are unlikely to generate attractive
returns.
(Eddington 2006a para 12)
However, as with cost-benefit analysis generally, it is important to note that
Eddington's findings do not explicitly consider impacts upon problems or other
distributional effects (by time, place or social group). Neither do they include second-
order effects (other than the particular issue of economic productivity) nor impact
upon spatial or other policies. His focus upon priority areas and accent on 'economic
return' as the basis of decision-making begs questions about the prospects for less cost-
effective transport improvements in other areas and consequential implications for
their local economies. To what extent should potential 'gains' from investment in the
priority areas be forgone in the interests of maintaining the welfare of other areas,
on the basis of both equity and of sustainability (i.e. avoiding greater dependence
on opportunities further afield)? Eddington does not enter this important field but a
national strategy would not be worth the name if it followed suit.
24.6 Roads and Realit y
Roads and Reality is a report published by the RAC Foundation which usefully extends
aspects of the analysis undertaken as part of the Eddington study (Banks et al. 2007).
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search