2 Evaluating the impact of transport
infrastructure projects
4. It is important that evaluation frameworks are
developed when a project starts so that departments can evaluate
projects against their original objectives; understand differences
from plans; assess progress against original aims; and learn lessons
for future projects. The Department told us it is still waiting
for new travel patterns to be fully established before it starts
to evaluate the project and it has only recently started to develop
a plan for evaluating High Speed 1. By developing the evaluation
retrospectively there is a risk that the evaluation model will
be set up to show maximum benefit from the project. A more objective
judgement against original aims could be achieved from a model
set up at the start of the project.[7]
5. While a complete evaluation of the High Speed
1 project would not be possible for some time, there are aspects
which the Department could have evaluated by now to inform its
plans for current projects such as High Speed 2 (HS2).[8]
The NAO estimated that the total cost to taxpayers of supporting
High Speed 1 could be £10.2 billion and the value of journey
time saving benefits for passengers will be £7 billion. Both
of these estimates cover a 60-year period and were calculated
in accordance with HM Treasury guidance. The Department will need
to show that the line will have regeneration benefits and wider
economic impacts worth many billions of pounds for it to be value
for money.[9]
6. A proper evaluation of transport infrastructure
projects is challenging. It requires a good understanding of the
effect of the project on regeneration locally and on the economy
more widely. For example, jobs may be displaced from one area
to another or economic growth that is experienced in an area with
new transport links may have occurred without it. We heard that
the evidence of the wider benefits high speed rail has brought
to other countries is mixed: Lille in France has grown as a result
of high speed rail, but there has been less of an effect in Germany
and Spain.[10] The New
Economics Foundation told us that evaluation needs to be done
within the context of a wider industrial and regional strategy.[11]
The Department agreed to build an evaluation model earlier for
the HS2 project. The new Accounting Officer told us that he had
talked to the Department's chief economist about how the Department
can become "best in class" in evaluating the range of
its activities.[12]
7. While the Department delivered its core objective,
the construction of the line, well, it has done less well in addressing
how the line's regeneration benefits will be delivered.[13]
One of the Department's key objectives for High Speed 1 was that
it would deliver regeneration benefits at King's Cross and at
the line's two intermediate stations at Stratford in east London
and Ebbsfleet in north Kent. The Department told us that "very
significant regeneration activity" is under way at King's
Cross and Stratford. [14]
The Department maintains that the High Speed 1 project transformed
St Pancras station and opened up access to the King's Cross site
bringing regeneration that would not otherwise have taken place.
However, regeneration occurred at Paddington Basin without any
such transport investment. We are unconvinced that regeneration
at King's Cross is dependent on High Speed 1. Without a convincing
evaluation, the Department cannot demonstrate the added value
that High Speed 1 has unlocked and that its investment has been
well spent.[15]
8. The Department told us that it has little influence
on the progress of regeneration at Ebbsfleet, which remains at
a very early stage, because the land is privately owned and controlled
The Department said that the principal responsibility for regeneration
at Ebbsfleet lies with the private landowner and the local planning
authorities. Neither the Department nor any other central government
department is taking the lead in making sure that regeneration
does in fact take place at Ebbsfleet, although this was a stated
Government objective for HS1 and despite a lot of time and attention
being spent on trying to regenerate the whole of the Thames Gateway.
We believe that the Department has missed an opportunity at Ebbsfleet
to demonstrate that high speed lines can bring regeneration around
the intermediate stations they serve.[16]
7 Qq 12, 82-86, 91 Back
8
Qq 11, 85, 102 Back
9
Qq 8, 90; C&AG's Report, para 15 Back
10
Qq 3-4, 6-8, 13, 20, 109-110 Back
11
Q 13 Back
12
Qq 82-86 Back
13
Qq 99-100 Back
14
Qq 67, 90 Back
15
Qq 10, 81-82, 108 Back
16
Qq 67, 101-104 Back
|
