8 Comments
User's avatar
Alexander Harrowell's avatar

*** health benefits from active travel in the last-mile of a rail journey....how do you accurately predict passenger numbers when the model needs to be detailed enough to factor how likely a passenger is to be too inebriated to drive***

I think a very good reason to get better at basic macro-level estimates here would be discouraging the habit of everything-bagelling any conceivable effect in to help the numbers and the related super shonky nth-order modelling. We don't really know how much Schools And Hospitals will benefit from people actively travelling in the last mile cough having to walk the rest of the way, we shouldn't pretend we do.

There's something deeply ironic in the way all these approval processes were invented because Do You Want A Planned Economy? Eh? Eh? Are You Some Kind Of Commie Let Me Tell You About Hayek And Friedman and they've evolved into efforts to do socialist calculation way beyond anything Oskar Lange or Wassily Leontief dreamed of.

Expand full comment
Chris's avatar

Thanks for writing this Harry! I shall try to circulate appropriately

Expand full comment
Long Branch Mike's avatar

I was wondering this exact phenomena recently - conservative ridership estimates doubled or tripled in only a few months after opening. Your modelling and industry experience & perspective fill in the reasons for this. Hopefully cities, regions, public transport executives, and most of all DfT take notice and adjust their methodology accordingly.

Expand full comment
Tim Almond's avatar

But do the numbers, even with these boosts to forecasts add up? The Dartmoor Line is carrying something like 250,000 journeys per year. Which I think costs £4.60 per journey. That's £1m in revenue.

It cost £40m to reopen the Dartmoor Line, so even if there was no operational costs, it would take 40 years for it to recoup the investment. This appears to be a bad use of public money, even when you factor in other benefits.

Expand full comment
Harry Rushworth's avatar

Okehampton alone had 315k journeys in 23/24 and it’s still growing which would put revenue 50% higher, closer to £1.5m. The Gov also gets more money back from infrastructure spend via taxes than via regular spending so £40m wouldn’t be the ‘true’ cost. Then there’s the benefits of any economic growth created in the area, which tend to be greater and more concentrated than other transport investments.

Expand full comment
Tim Almond's avatar

So, 25 years, assuming no costs. What are the costs?

If the government spent the money on nurses, it would also get the tax back.

Has anyone demonstrated, in detail, the economic growth of this train? I have no problem with the general point that the railways brought economic growth and that travel into cities has benefits, but this one seems marginal.

Expand full comment
Harry Rushworth's avatar

I’d encourage you to read the business case for the line, and then round up the benefits given the forecast is being beaten.

Expand full comment
Tim Almond's avatar

I can't find that anywhere online. Do you have a link, and does the document have a detailed breakdown of the assumptions used to make the calculation?

Expand full comment