X Close

General Election

Home

Menu

The Big Question on…transport

By ucyow3c, on 30 April 2015

Is the economy making us stupid? (It’s the stupid economy)

“HS2 will be an engine for the economy.” “High speed rail does not promote economic growth.” They can’t both be true so please make your selection now. Or maybe the truth is a bit of both, though this would be rather inconvenient for both the promoters and opponents of HS2, not to mention a host of other major transport schemes.

It seems that the economy has become the principal battleground for big transport projects. Congestion, capacity, accessibility: they’re all mentioned but the over-arching issue seems to be the economic impact of such investments. This makes the fact that we remain unsure what the impact is all the more annoying to those who would like to base significant decisions on sound reasoning and evidence. It is quite helpful, though, to those who can make vague claims about growth or prosperity as a substitute for admitting that their enthusiasm for the scheme in question is based on more immediate self-interest.

Not that there isn’t plenty of research being done on transport and the economy. The problem is that too much of the research looks very like advocacy: paid for by organisations whose position on the topic is manifest and often carried out by researchers whose conclusions can be predicted inductively based on their findings in previous, comparable studies. One knows to be suspicious when it is possible to select your researcher on the basis of the answer you seek.

One very popular way of addressing the question of transport’s economic impact is to deploy a model, being a mathematical representation of actors and their decisions. There are many such models available and the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying theories are much discussed and debated. What is not debated is that these models inevitably simplify reality. Even if they didn’t, one could reasonably ask whether they model correctly. The very fact that you’ll get different answers from different models suggests that they’re not all equally sound. In fact, I remember well one such model and its inventor being described as “Billy Bean and His Funny Machine” (actually the name of a children’s television programme broadcast in the 1950s).

Not that we should blame the modellers. It’s not easy to predict the caprices of a myriad actors decades into the future. Human beings are inconveniently irrational; organisations too. And, given that it’s hard enough to say how many people will catch the bus if the frequency is doubled, we shouldn’t be surprised that predictions about relocation, investment and employment resulting from transport changes will be all the more tenuous. Perhaps, then, we should stop relying so much on models. One argument I heard recently is for politicians to present major infrastructure as an article of faith – “I believe this scheme will be transformational. Just trust me.”

It’s a nice idea but seems implausible in a world where political statements are subjected to ever greater scrutiny. Political leaders will, for the foreseeable future, want to appeal to facts. If facts are unavailable, factoids will have to do. That being so, I propose that we return to our old friend the case study. Not as fancy as a model, no. But capable of providing insights into what happened and why. Case studies are likely to be equivocal – some major transport schemes are transformational; others not. But, whereas models gave the term “black box” to the world, case studies might help us to understand better what the ingredients for success are. We might even end up understanding what we need to do in order for HS2 to be an engine for growth rather than a turkey. Not that it will be transport’s fault if we get it wrong; instead I blame the economy, its complexity and the fact that we’re fixated by it. It’s stupid.

Tom Cohen (Transport Institute, UCL)


 

UCL’s Big Questions sought contributions from academics around UCL to address the ‘big question’ facing the next UK government, and how research can provide an evidence base. It was devised by Clio Heslop (UCL Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy) and Olivia Stevenson (UCL Public Policy), with the support of the Communications and Marketing team.

Have your say on the big questions by tweeting using #UCLGE2015, by leaving a blog comment, or by contacting the organisers.

Please join us on 27 May for the UCL’s Big Question Time event.

 

Leave a Reply