Category: Economics for Business: Ch 22

Posted on

HS2: a cost–benefit analysis (further update)

On June 20, the Review of the Government’s case for a High Speed Rail programme was published. This was commissioned by the Transport Select Committee from the independent consultancy, Oxera.

The programme is initially for a high-speed rail link form London to Birmingham and then subsequently for two additonal routes from Birmingham to Manchester and from Birmingham to Leeds. The whole thing is known as the ‘HS2 Y programme’

Oxera’s brief was to ‘provide an independent review of the economic case for the programme and to provide a set of questions that the Committee could use to probe the evidence base put forward by witnesses during its inquiry.’ In considering the economic case, Oxera focused on the economic, social and environment impacts, both monetary and non-monetary.

The summary to the report states that:

Overall, the case for the High Speed Rail programme seems to depend on whether and when the capacity is needed, the selection of the best VfM [value-for-money] approach to delivering that capacity, the degree of uncertainty around the monetised benefits and costs of the preferred options, and judgements on the balance of evidence relating to non-monetised items, such as environment and regeneration impacts (which are likely to be substantive in their own right but not fully set out in the Government’s assessment).

On July 19, the Institute for Economic Affairs, the pro-free-market think-tank, published a highly critical disussion paper, challenging the case for HS2. The paper, High Speed 2: the next government project disaster? arges that:

There is a significant risk that High Speed 2 (HS2) will become the latest in a long series of government big-project disasters with higher-than-forecast costs and lower-than-forecast benefits. HS2 is not commercially viable and will require substantial and increasing levels of subsidy. Taxpayers will therefore bear a very high proportion of the financial risks, which are wholly under-represented in the Economic Case presented by the Department for Transport.

The publication of the report and the IEA discussion paper has fueled the debate between supporters and opponents of HS2, as the articles below demonstrate.

Update
In November 2011, the House of Commons Transport Select Committee came out in favour of the government’s HS2 plans. According to the committee’s chair, Louise Ellman:

A high speed rail network, beginning with a line between London and the West Midlands, would provide a step change in the capacity, quality, reliability and frequency of rail services between our major cities.

A high speed line offers potential economic and strategic benefits which a conventional line does not, including a dramatic improvement in connectivity between our major cities, Heathrow and other airports, and the rest of Europe.

However, she did raise some issues that would need addressing concerning the overall level of investment in the rail network and the encironmental impact of HS2.

Investment in HS2 must not lead to reduced investment in the ‘classic’ rail network. We are concerned that the Government is developing separate strategies for rail and aviation, with HS2 separate from both. We call again for the publication of a comprehensive transport strategy.

Investment in high speed rail has potential to boost growth but may have a substantial negative impact on the countryside, communities and people along the route. This must be better reflected in the business case for HS2 and future phases of the project. We would encourage the Government to follow existing transport corridors wherever possible.

Further update
In January 2012, the government approved HS2. The Transport Secretary, Justine Greening, said:

I have decided Britain should embark upon the most significant transport infrastructure project since the building of the motorways by supporting the development and delivery of a new national high speed rail network.

The ‘articles for further update’ below give reactions to the announcement.

Articles
Is the UK’s high speed rail project a waste of money? BBC News, Rory Cellan-Jones (21/7/11)
On a collision path The Economist blogs, Blighty (21/7/11)
High speed rail dismissed as ‘vanity project’ by right-wing think tank The Telegraph, David Millward (19/7/11)
HS2 high-speed rail plans ‘a recipe for disaster’ Guardian, Dan Milmo (19/7/11)
High speed rail report shows ‘uncertainty’ over benefits Rail.co, A. Samuel (21/7/11)
Our high speed rail future BBC News, Rory Cellan-Jones (21/7/11)
Anger as high-speed rail link to London branded ‘vanity project’ Yorkshire Post (20/7/11)

Articles for update
MPs support plans for a high speed rail network BBC News, Richard Lister (8/11/11)
High-speed rail project will boost economy, say MPs Guardian, Dan Milmo (8/11/11)
High speed rail report ‘raises questions’ say opponents BBC News (8/11/11)
MPs back controversial high-speed rail link Yahoo News, Sebastien Bozon (8/11/11)
HS2 project: ‘Wrong to castigate locals’ BBC Today Programme (8/11/11)

Articles for further update
HS2 go-ahead sees mixed reaction BBC News (10/1/12)
HS2 – What’s in it for you? Channel 4 News (10/1/12)
Ready to depart: But will the HS2 express be derailed before it arrives? Independent, Nigel Morris (11/1/12)
HS2 go-ahead sees mixed reaction BBC News (10/1/12)
HS2 go-ahead sees mixed reaction BBC News (10/1/12)

Reports and discussion paper
Review of the Government’s case for a High Speed Rail programme Oxera Publishing (20/6/11)
High Speed 2: the next government project disaster? IEA Discussion Paper No. 36 (19/7/11)
Good case for high speed rail to run to Birmingham and beyond, say MPs House of Commons Transport Select Committee News (8/11/11)
Transport Committee – Tenth Report: High Speed Rail House of Commons Transport Select Committee (8/11/11)

Questions

  1. Itemise (a) the monetary costs and benefits and (b) the non-monetary costs and benefits of HS2 that were identified by Oxera. Try to identify other costs and benefits that were not included by Oxera.
  2. Why are the costs and benefits subject to great uncertainty?
  3. How should this uncertainty be taken into account by decision-makers?
  4. Explain the process of discounting in cost–benefit analysis. How should the rate of discount be chosen?
  5. What are the main criticisms of the report made by the IEA discussion paper?
  6. Assess these criticisms.
Posted on

Fair fares?

In many parts of the UK, bus services are run by a single operator. In other parts, it is little different, with the main operator facing competition on only a very limited number of routes. Over the whole of England, Scotland and Wales there are 1245 bus operators, but the ‘big five’ (Arriva, FirstGroup, Go-Ahead, National Express and Stagecoach) carry some 70% of passengers. Generally these five companies do not compete with each other, but, instead, operate as monopolies, or near monopolies, in their own specific areas. On average, the largest operator in an urban area runs 69% of local bus services.

Given this lack of competition and potential abuse of monopoly power, the Office of Fair Trading referred local bus services in Great Briatin (excluding London) to the Competition Commission (CC) in January 2010. The CC has just published its final report. Paragraph 5 of the summary to the report states:

We concluded that there were four features of local bus markets which mean that effective head-to-head competition is uncommon and which limit the effectiveness of potential competition and new entry. These features are the existence of: high levels of concentration; barriers to entry and expansion; customer conduct in deciding which bus to catch; and operator conduct by which operators avoid competing with other operators in ‘Core Territories’ (certain parts of an operator’s network which it regards as its ‘own’ territory) leading to geographic market segregation.

And paragraph 8 states:

We decided on a package of remedies with three main elements to address the AECs [adverse effects on competition] that we found. First, the remedies include market-opening measures to reduce barriers to entry and expansion, thereby reducing market concentration and providing an environment in which competition is likely to be sustained. By reducing barriers to entry and expansion, we also expect it to become harder for operators to sustain a coordinated outcome. Second, the remedies include measures to promote competition in relation to the tendering of contracts for supported services. Third, we made recommendations about the wider policy and regulatory environment, including emphasizing compliance with and effective enforcement of competition law.

The following articles look at the findings of the report and at the potential for improving the service to passengers, in terms of quality, frequency and price.

Articles
Competition regulator outlines bus market shake-up The Telegraph (20/12/11)
Bus market not competitive, Competition Commission says BBC News (20/12/11)
Passengers ‘need more bus rivalry’ Press Association (20/12/11)

Competition Commission publications
CC sets out Future Destination for Bus Market Competition Commission News Release (20/12/11)
Bus Market Inquiry: Final Report, Case Studies and Appendices Competition Commission (20/12/11)
Local Bus Services: Accompanying Documents Competition Commission (20/12/11)

Questions

  1. What are the barriers to entry in the market for local bus services?
  2. In what circumstances are local bus services a natural monopoly? Is this generally the case?
  3. In a non-regulated bus market, how could established operators use predatory pricing to drive out new entrants?
  4. How may offering reductions for return tickets reduce competition on routes where there is a large operator and one or more smaller ones?
  5. What practices can established large operators use to drive out smaller competitors?
  6. Go through the four reasons given by the CC why head-to-head competition in local bus markets is uncommon and in each case consider what remedies could be adopted by the regulator or by local authorities.
  7. Which of the remedies proposed by the CC involve encouraging more competition and which involve tighter regulation?
Posted on

Is the demand for petrol becoming more elastic?

The price of petrol at the pumps has risen substantially over the past few years. In the UK, according to the AA, the average price between January and June 2011 was 133.13p. In the same period in 2010 it was 116.68p; and in the same period in 2008 it was 109.00p.

Over the first six months of 2011, the amount of petrol sold fell by 5.2 per cent. This was on top of the decline in consumption over the previous four years. Between 2006 and 2010 consumption of petrol fell by 17.4%. The consumption of petrol and diesel are given in the following table.

UK consumption of petrol and diesel (tonnes millions)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Petrol 18.14 17.59 16.68 15.76 14.99
Diesel 20.15 21.07 20.61 20.06 20.87
Total 38.29 38.66 37.29 35.82 35.86

Source: Digest of United Kingdom energy statistics (DUKES) (Department of Energy and Climate Change)

So what has caused this decline in petrol sales? Are there multiple factors at work here? Have a look at the articles and consider the explanations.

Articles
Cash-strapped drivers cut petrol use by 15 per cent Channel 4 News (5/10/11)
Sales of petrol slump as skint motorists cut costs Daily Record, Jamie Grierson (5/10/11)
Petrol Sales Plunge As Cash Squeeze Tightens Sky News (6/10/11)
Fuel cost rise ‘forcing change in driver habits’ TRL News, Mary Treen (6/10/11)

Data
Digest of United Kingdom energy statistics (DUKES) Department of Energy and Climate Change
Fuel price report (monthly) Automobile Association
Brent Crude spot prices Energy Information Association

Questions

  1. What factors have caused a fall in consumption of petrol?
  2. If you choose to spend a set amount on petrol, what is your price elasticity of demand?
  3. What determines the price elasticity of demand for petrol?
  4. Why has the consumption of diesel fallen less than that of petrol?
  5. Under what circumstances would an increase in tax on road fuel of 3p per litre (as planned for January 2012), result in a decrease in tax revenue? Why would the price elasticity of demand for road fuel have to be significantly greater than 1 (ignoring the minus sign) and not merely above 1 for this to be the case?
  6. Why is it likely that people’s price elasticity of demand for road fuel will become less elastic the more they have cut back on consumption?
  7. Why is the demand for petrol likely to be more elastic with respect to (a) price, and (b) income over the longer term?
  8. To what extent is the demand for road fuel a ‘derived demand’?
  9. To what extent is the fall in the consumption of petrol a reflection of a movement along the demand curve for petrol or a shift in the demand curve? Explain.
Posted on

What cycling does for the economy

Cycling generated £2.9 billion for the UK economy in 2010 – a rise of 28% over 2009. This amounts to an average ‘Gross Cycling Product’ of £233 for each of Britain’s 12½ million cyclists. What is more, the figures are likely to continue growing rapidly in future years. This is the central finding of the LSE report, The British Cycling Economy, authored by Dr Alexander Grous, a productivity and innovation specialist at the Centre of Economic Performance (CEP) at the London School of Economics.

The major benefits to the economy from cycling include the sale of cycles and accessories, cycle maintenance, the generation of wages and tax revenues from 23,000 people employed directly in bicycle manufacture, sales, distribution and the maintenance of cycling infrastructure. There are also health benefits. These are partly the direct benefits to the economy of fewer days taken in sick leave by cyclists (a contribution of £128 million in 2010) and partly the health and well-being benefits to the individual and the saving on healthcare expenditure.

But are enough people being encouraged to get on their bikes? What are the major incentives for people to cycle? The report identifies the following:

• Cycling being made both segment- and gender-neutral, appealing to the widest number of user groups, across all ages and genders;
• Coordinated and preferential traffic signals that facilitate faster and safer journeys;
• ‘Short cut’ routes in dense urban areas and capital cities that join arterial road routes;
• Traffic calming initiatives that include road narrowing and speed restrictions that range from 30km/h to ‘walking speeds’;
• Extensive parking and in some areas, designated women-only spaces with CCTV and enhanced lighting;
• Established bike rental schemes;
• Long-running training programmes for children;
• The prevalence of strict ‘liability laws’ that assume a car driver is responsible in the event of a collision between a car and a cyclist.

Read the following articles and report and then consider, as an economist, how the benefits and costs should be analysed and what policy implications might follow.

Articles
Wheels of fortune: how cycling became a £3bn-a-year industry Independent, Tim Hume (22/8/11)
Cycling worth £3bn a year to UK economy, says LSE study Guardian (21/8/11)
Cycling industry gives economy £3bn boost BBC News (22/8/11)
Growth in cycling ‘boosting economy’, says LSE BBC News (22/8/11)
Britain Gets Back On Its Bike British Cycling (22/8/11)
‘Gross Cycling Product’ worth £2.9bn to UK economy says LSE Road.cc (22/8/11)

Report
The British Cycling Economy: ‘Gross Cycling Product’ Report LSE, Dr Alexander Grous

Questions

  1. How is the figure of £2.9bn derived? Explain whether it is a ‘value-added’ figure?
  2. Which of the benefits can be regarded as externalities?
  3. Are there any external costs from cycling? If so, what are they and how might they be minimised?
  4. How might incentives be changed in order to encourage more people to cycle?
  5. Assume that you are a government or local authority considering whether or not to increase investment in cycle paths. What factors would you take into consideration in order to make a socially efficient decision?
Posted on

Valuing the natural environment

Economics studies the choices people make. ‘Rational choice’ involves the weighing up of costs and benefits and trying to maximise the surplus of benefits over costs. This surplus will be maximised when people do more of things where the marginal benefit exceeds the marginal cost and less of things where the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit. But, of course, measuring benefits and costs is not always easy. Nevertheless, for much of the time we do make conscious choices where we consider that choosing to do something is ‘worth it’: i.e. that the benefit to us exceeds the cost.

When we make a choice, often this involves expenditure. For example, when we choose to buy an item in a shop, we spend money on the item, and also, perhaps, spend money on transport to get us to the shop. But the full opportunity cost includes not only the money we spend, but also the best alternative activity sacrificed while we are out shopping.

Then there are the benefits. Not all pleasurable activity costs us money. The sight of beautiful contryside or the pleasure of the company of friends may cost us very little, if anything, in money terms. But they may still be very valuable to us.

If we are to make optimal decisions we need to have some estimate of all costs and benefits, not just ones involving the payment or receipt of money. This applies both to individual behaviour and to collective decisions made by governments or other agencies.

Cost–benefit analysis seeks to do this to help decisions about new projects, such as a new road, a new hospital, environmental projects, and so on. But just how do we set about putting a value on the environment – on the pleasure of a walk in bluebell woods, on protecting bird life in wetlands or sustaining ecosystems?

For the first time there has been a major study that attempts to value the environment. According to the introduction to the report:

The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA) is the first analysis of the UK’s natural environment in terms of the benefits it provides to society and the nation’s continuing prosperity. Carried out between mid-2009 and mid-2011, the UK NEA has been a wide-ranging, multi-stakeholder, cross-disciplinary process, designed to provide a comprehensive picture of past, present and possible future trends in ecosystem services and their values; it is underpinned by the best available evidence and the most up-to-date conceptual thinking and analytical tools. The UK NEA is innovative in scale, scope and methodology, and has involved more than 500 natural scientists, economists, social scientists and other stakeholders from government, academic and private sector institutions, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The following podcast and webcast look at the report and at some of the issues it raises in terms of quantifying and incorporating environmental costs and benefits into decision taking.

Podcast and Webcast
‘The hidden value’ of our green spaces BBC Today Programme, Tom Feilden (2/6/11)
Report puts monetary value on Britain’s natural assets BBC News, Jeremy Cooke (2/6/11)

Articles

NEA report highlights need for biodiversity Farmers Guardian, Ben Briggs (2/6/11)
Nature is worth £19bn a year to the UK economy – report Energy & Environmental Management Magazine (2/6/11)
In praise of… the unquantifiable Guardian (3/6/11)
Priceless benefits of bluebell woods Guardian letters, Dr Bhaskar Vira and Professor Roy Haines-Young (4/6/11)
Nature ‘is worth billions’ to UK BBC News, Richard Black (2/6/11)
Putting a price on nature BBC News, Tom Feilden (2/6/11)
Value of Britain’s trees and waterways calculated in ‘ground-breaking’ study The Telegraph, Andy Bloxham (2/6/11)
Nature worth billions, says environment audit Financial Times, Clive Cookson (2/6/11)
Nature gives UK free services worth billions Planet Earth, Tom Marshall (3/6/11)
UK scientists put price on nature with National Ecosystem Assessment GreenWise, Ann Elise Taylor (2/6/11)

Report

UK National Ecosystem Assessment: link to report DEFRA
UK National Ecosystem Assessment (June 2011)
The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings

Questions

  1. How would you set about valuing the benefits of woodlands?
  2. According to the report, the health benefits of living close to a green space are worth up to £300 per person per year. How much credance sould we attach to such a figure?
  3. What do you understand by the ‘ecosystem approach’ and the term ‘ecosystem services’?
  4. Explain Figure 2 on page 3 of Chapter 2 of the report.
  5. Should decision makers quantify only those benefits of ecosystems experienced by humans? Would all environmentalists agree with this approach?
  6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of quantifying all costs and benefits in money terms?
  7. Compare the consequences over the next 50 years of a ‘world markets’ scenarios with that of a ‘nature at work’ scenario.
  8. What policy implications follow from the report?