Evaluating the wider impacts of rail-based transport investment on urban and economic development DfT workshop on Transport Geography Dr Chia-Lin Chen Research Associate in Transport and Development Bartlett School of Planning Introduction 2. “What” questions: wider impacts on urban and economic development This study was commissioned as part of the EU Interreg IVB North-West Europe SINTROPHER to examine the existing evidence of the wider impacts of rail-based transport investment. In order to tease out critical success factors and mechanisms as well as to allow a better understanding of the nature and strength of economic and urban effects in different contexts, this study assembles evidence-based case studies at different spatial scales (national, regional, local) in relation to different rail-based transport schemes (High-Speed Rail, Tram-train, MRT [Mass Rapid Transit], LRT [Light Rail &Tram]). The aim is to generate critical implications and recommendations for policymaking and investment appraisal approaches. Types of wider impacts Nine variables of wider impacts taking place over three stages in the development process have been identified. Although the specific situation varies in different contexts, there are two ways of classifying wider impacts, namely by stages in the development process and by types of wider impact. A temporal dimension of wider impacts: a life-cycle timescale -By stages in the development process Key contexts and debates Rail-based systems and their wider (spatial) impacts Economic Geography and transport: the role of transport connectivity is critical in ensuring the necessary face-to-face contact for producing knowledge and efficient mobility in an enlarged territory. “Thick” vs. “Thin” lines: despite an apparent revival of rail-based public transport investment, uneven development and spatial inequality have widened at both inter-and intra- regional levels. The key challenges is to address the issues of “peripheralisation of peripheries”. Transport for competitiveness and resilience: Different contexts involve different trajectories and different transport needs. It is important to appreciate that transport can lead to competitiveness which is needed to keep a place vibrant, or to resilience which could prevent a deprived area from further decline. The role that appraisal plays in decision-making varies from country to country. The limitations of CBA in measuring wider unquantifiable effects have been widely criticised and problematic for decision-making on both national and local transport investments. Key debates on the relationship between transport and development are exogenous and endogenous variables of transport for economic development and the role of transport from demand- vs. supply- oriented perspectives. Clearly, public interventions are critical in addressing the widening inequality resulting from market forces and are indispensable to maximising wider effects. At present, visionary transport investments, in particular for deprived places, are not sufficiently valued and should be encouraged and supported in the future. -Spatial scales - their synergy for maximizing wider impacts -Catchment areas -Types of economic activities Research Questions 3. “Why” questions: Key factors and mechanisms A mixed picture of empirical evidence has been presented and reiterated in various studies. Therefore, this evaluation does not intend to simply collect all the existing literature; rather, it presents a deeper and more systematic analysis of a few key studies so that the nature of wider impacts and those influential factors/conditions underlying this mixed result can be better comprehended. Three key questions answered are: External economic conditions Internal conditions: pre-conditions of places and people Contextual factors Government structure and institutional empowerment/devolution Land use and transport planning policies and integration Financial/funding policies Governmental policies Government & Institutional factors Key factors & mechanisms 1. How How have wider impacts been measured? (What kinds of methodology have been used to measure wider impacts?) Institutional governance Political leadership Governance (various authorities) Central and local relationship PPP and community involvement 2. What & When Selecting suitable transport modes Designing Routes (locations and land) Integrating transport network and systems What kinds of wider impacts have been identified? What is the difference between different rail-based transport systems? When did wider impacts take place? Planning & Operation factors Planning Operation Marketing, ticketing, multi-modal timetables, quality of services 3. Why & What Why are there mixed results? What factors could explain the mixed picture? What mechanisms are in place to generate positive effects? Recommendations Existing evidence has highlighted the fundamental importance of policy and public intervention in capturing the wider impacts of rail-based transport investment for both thriving and lagging places. Four key recommendations: Instead of seeking more precise net ex-post evidence from rail-based investment, it is more important to assess how the role of transport investment can contribute to an overall regeneration strategy as developed through a master planning process. Hence it is the effective visioning and packaging of the regeneration strategy that leads to the investment, rather than the quantification of potential impact. Decentralisation and empowerment of local authorities are conducive. At the same time, a multi-level structure in place at the local level is important to ensure the availability of strategic planning at the higher local level alongside various planning matters catering for different needs at the lower local level. More research is needed to understand and to address transport and development issues in both thriving and deprived places, including the close relationship between direct and wider transport impacts and the relationship between urban development and economic development, as well as innovative financial mechanisms. A new framework to support decision-making on transport investment will be vital to achieve broader policies and strategic planning objectives that bring benefits to underperforming or deprived regions or settlements. Although it will be a major task, it should be the next step forward. Key findings 1. “How” questions: methods for measuring wider impacts Research methods used to produce the evidence play a pivotal role in shaping the argument of the findings. Adopting different time series, spatial scales and analytical tools can lead to different results. A common feature of ex-ante models lies in a couple of narrowly defined and simplified factors such as the reduction of travel time and transport cost, which are used to infer a series of estimated economic performance, such as economic productivity, wages/income, economic cost etc. In addition, an aggregated instead of disaggregated approach is widely applied and therefore specific potential impacts at the local level are not captured in these models. Existing ex-post literature has clearly suggested that it is impossible to reach a definite conclusion on wider impacts since other factors are at work alongside transport investment. The evidence indicates that there should be more comprehension of context-specific information, more targeted collection of data, and more realistic expectation e.g. “patience capital” because various impacts are likely to take place at different stages of processes. Collaborators logos