Basically it's another demonstration of how they are able to, by choosing the numbers that represent only a small part of the picture, suggest that a great injustice is being done to motorists.
Who are these "motorists" anyway, are they a separate species? Are we not all just human beings trying to get from A to B using the best method made available to us?
Anyway, they will argue that the BCR, or "Benefit-Cost ratio" of road schemes is much higher than for public transport schemes, thus the money should be spent on roads.
They quote average BCRs for different types of projects undertaken:
- Highways Agency Roads - 4.66
- Local roads - 4.23
- Heavy rail schemes - 2.83
- Light rail schemes - 2.14
- Local public transport schemes - 1.71
First, road schemes never include the cost of vehicles in the calculations, because the user pays for them directly. This makes road schemes appear cheaper when in fact on an overall cost per user basis they are much more expensive.
Secondly, and most significantly, fuel duty is included in the calculations. This means that any analysis using this set of criteria will come out in favour of a scheme that puts more cars on the roads. Light rail schemes, for example, which are designed to reduce congestion by attracting motorists out of their cars, have to gain a high enough benefit cost ratio to get approval despite the loss of income to the treasury from fuel duty counting against them.
Numbers can be useful, but they should always be viewed in context.
No comments:
Post a Comment