Henbury loop

I attended the call in meeting this morning re the Henbury loop. I had thought of a number of things to say, most of which I didn't, but may hold on until it is debated at the meeting of full council which will now be arranged.

All party support

I’d first off like to congratulate the Wet of England partnership on getting all four party groups on Bristol City Council on the same side – in opposition to your decision to go for a Henbury spur rather than a Henbury loop.

Sign in

I am not going to pretend that I signed the call-in papers because of the process. I signed it because I disagreed with the decision. I am fully supportive of having a Henbury loop over other solutions.

That isn’t to say that I don’t have problems with the decision-making process itself.

Commitment to Public transport

As a Green, I am committed to having the best sustainable transport solution for the city of Bristol (and surrounds) in order to create a truly sustainable future. This means many things – for example dramatically improving the bus service, or improving facilities for those who cycle. But it also  includes having the best possible  public transport solutions for the city. We need a local rail network which allows as many people as possible to get to get to all of the major venues, employment centres and retail centres in the area. Clearly this includes having a rail network which allows people flexibility in their travel decisions. It also means taking an imaginative , ambitious can-do approach.

Why a Henbury loop?

In our opinion, the point of the Henbury loop is that it is a significant part of the basis of a rail network. Not all of Bristol, but a significant portion of it. If you do that,  it is the basis for a large number of the other possibilities for improving he rail network, especially in the North of the city. And, as a matter of principle, we need to be making best use of the existing rail infrastructure.

My experience of this decision

Following Green Party successes in the council elections last May, we were allocated a seat on the West of England scrutiny panel for the first time. This is because we replaced the LDs on the committee. I was invited to one meeting, but was unable to attend due to a prior commitment. Almost immediately afterwards, I was notified of the intention to make the decision to choose the Henbury spur over the loop.

This notification came on a Thursday morning, saying the decision was going to be made the following Friday and asking for comments by the Wednesday lunchtime.

I spent Thursday preparing for a Place scrutiny committee meeting on the Monday afternoon. I had a prior commitment (to visit my parents) which took me out of Bristol from the Friday to the Monday lunchtime. I went straight into the committee meeting (which I chaired). I had another meeting that evening.

This meant I had the Tuesday and Wednesday morning to read, analyse and respond to the reports for the committee.

The report was 70 pages long, and the key information is contained within a GRIP analysis which is on the WoE website, which is 1330 pages long. In other words, to participate, I would have to have analysed 1400 pages in about a day and a bit.

I hope you agree that the idea of doing this sensibly in the time available is absurd. God help me had I had a job.

 

I might add that at the scrutiny committee meeting I did not attend, I note there were some 57 projects with a total cost of something like £150m – which are to be scrutinised in 4 meetings per year.

Benefit cost ratio analysis

According to the WoE Assurance Framework rules:

The BCR of less than 2.0 for all the Loop-based options (2a, 2b) mean that they still do not qualify for funding from the Local Growth Fund under the West of England’s Assurance Framework rules

 

I have a few comments to make about this:

1. It is interesting to note that the use of benefit:cost ratio dates back to 1848. One wonders if a more up-to-date system of analysis exists.
2. A critique of the system suggests:

• A cost benefit analysis requires that all costs and benefits be identified and appropriately quantified. Unfortunately, human error often results in common cost benefit analysis errors such as accidentally omitting certain costs and benefits due to the inability to forecast indirect causal relationships
• Another disadvantage of the cost benefit analysis is the amount of subjectivity involved when identifying, quantifying, and estimating different costs and benefits
• Since this evaluation method estimates the costs and benefits for a project over a period of time, it is necessary to calculate the present value. This equalizes all present and future costs and benefits by evaluating all items in terms of present-day values, which eliminates the need to account for inflation or speculative financial gains. Unfortunately, this poses a significant disadvantage because, even if one can accurately calculate the present value, there is no guarantee that the discount rate used in the calculation is realistic.

Applying this to the specific example of the Henbury loop, I immediately ask myself the following questions:

In calculating the cost benefit ratio for the Henbury loop, what factors have been included in the calculation, and how have they been included?

How sensitive is the methodology to change of variable? It has been suggested to me that a small change to the input could result in a large change to the output. Is this correct? (ie how reliable are the figures?)

Some things are directly quantifiable. Other things are much harder to assess. Has the additional congestion  on a variety of roads in North Bristol been taken into account? Has the contribution of to air pollution and therefore increased ill-health been taken into account?

Other submissions

I am sure we can all come up with are own set of similar questions. (And I note – for example – that Martin Garrett of TfGB has come up with a set, including

1. What is impact of RPS?
2. Do ‘Big Players’ such as Centro (West Midlands) or Greater Manchester have their own versions of the BCR rules?  (Martin says they do and this is because their relationship with the DfT is different and their vision is truly regional.  They bring in economic development and social factors and take a regional view of funding and need, and then focus regional resources.) If we have different rules of assessment, which is correct?
3. BCR methodology might be useful when considering marginal improvements to an existing network, but it largely ignores potential network effects and is even more inappropriate when there is no recognisable modern public transport network in the first place, as is the case here. How have the impacts across the full network been taken into account?
    
   I further note that Rob Dixon has put in a statement of behalf of FosBR listing a set of reasons why the decision to proceed with a spur rather than a loop is open to debate. I would like to see these questions answered point by point.
    

Political  support for Henbury loop

I refer you to the document signed by George Ferguson, Charlotte Leslie and others

‘Outline Business Case for the Henbury Loop’

http://www.activenp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Outline-Business-Case-for-the-Henbury-Loop-1.pdf

As the name suggests, it supports the Henbury loop. Please note that one of the signatories is the elected mayor of Bristol.

I also draw you attention to the motion put by Cllr Weston and passed by Bristol City Council at its meeting on 20^th January 2015. Passed by 58 votes to zero, it includes the statement:

To this end this Council:

- Fully supports the opening of a Henbury Loop in North Bristol, with new Stations at Ashley Down, Horfield, Filton North and Henbury and believes that an additional stop at Charlton should be explored

 

I note that one of those voting in favour of the amendment was Cllr Simon Cook.

I assume that officers of Bristol City Council have communicated this fact to officers of the West of England partnership. I wondered how this decision had been taken into account?

What consultation has there been?

As a newly-appointed councillor to the committee, I have not had the opportunity to scrutinise this decision in any way, shape or form.

What I would like to have seen is presentations to councillors of the business case, allowing questioning of the assumptions and the case in general. This would be followed by an opportunity to either support or oppose the proposal (prior to a decision being made).

I am not aware of the public being meaningfully consulted.

Conclusion

My conclusion is this. I have sufficient doubts about the scrutiny of the West of England partnership in general, and of this decision in particular to believe it right and proper that this decision be referred to a full meeting of Bristol City Council.

I would like it to be preceded by briefings of councillors by officers and responses to the questions raised in public forum. I actually think such an approach could be of benefit to all concerned.