Transport Scotland non ‘economic impact analysis’ of 2007 A83 landslide

As part of its response to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee on Argyll First’s Sign for the A83 petition, Transport Scotland included an economic impact analysis it had produced after the landslip that closed the A83 for 12-13 days between 28th October and 10th November 2007.

The analysis was based on this incident in 2007, calculated on 2008 prices and produced in 2009.

For Argyll has been working on the paper to see what it came up with, how and why.

To put the cart before the horse, this document is a very long way from being an economic impact analysis.

It is confined to taking the information available to it, on tap, from automatic traffic counters at given locations; translating this into an estimate of how many journeys were lost, how many diverted – and putting a figure on these for additional fuel costs involved.

The diversion that is the only road access route between Argyll and the populous central belt is estimated by the AA and confirmed by experience to add over an hour to the journey.

The study, curiously, evaluates the impact of the A83 closure at a national level rather than on its impact upon Argyll.

In its limitation to traffic counting, the study is wholly inadequate as an economic impact assessment.

In its national contextualising of the impact of the A83 closure, it avoids the point altogether.

The A83 is the only route in and out of – and right through Argyll down to Campbeltown, from the central belt.

The core issue of its vulnerability to closure through landslides at Rest and Be Thankful is the total economic impact on Argyll and the Isles of the loss of this access.

However, even at a national level, it is the full economic impact on Argyll of A83 closures that is important – not the impact which excludes the specific costs borne in Argyll, as this does.

Or are we to understand that businesses in Argyll and the economic performance of the region are of no national importance?

The papers conclusions

The seven page document, padded with maps and charts, amounts to four pages of text, much of which is either repetitive or base level information. This is no more than two days’ entry level work.

It concludes that 38,000 – 40,000 journeys were disrupted over the period; and that the national economic cost of the closure has been estimated at around £320,000 (at 2008 prices).

It declares that this is likely to be an overestimate.

Looking at the impact of the closure had it taken place in peak season instead of early winter, the study offers the historical traffic count data for the A83, showing that August is the busiest month, with its traffic around 65% higher than at the time of the landslide.

Based on this percentage and assuming that the characteristics of these journeys – in terms of lost journeys and diverted journeys etc – would be similar to  those of the journeys affected by the November landslide , the study estimates that the impact of an August landslide would rise to £540,000.

There is nothing else in this study, even at this level of superficiality – nothing showing any substantial research, nothing displaying an awareness of what an economic impact study requires – nothing other than the inflation of the sort of commonsense one gets in a chat over a pint. For example it notes but does not quantify that there will have been some additional traffic on the Cowal ferries during the closure at the Rest. Everyone’s proverbial granny could have told us that – and did.

The major issue is that this study, presented as an economic impact assessment, makes no attempt to consider the impact on businesses of the closure of the A83. Yet this road provides the sole land access from the central belt to the large and sprawling landmass of Argyll.

The indicative examples we cite below of business issues ignored in their totality by Transport Scotland, are not exclusive. There will  be many other examples and several other issues.

Hotels and accommodation providers

The study’s failure to consider business impacts includes, of course, those on accommodation providers.

Yet, for example, a major establishment in Inveraray had 80% bookings over the affected period – which shrank to 20% occupancy as visitors were either obstructed or put off by the closure and the very long diversion.

Every accommodation provider from Rest and Be Thankful to the south end of the Mull of Kintyre and on the isles of Gigha, Islay and Jura will have been potentially affected by this closure.

Am indicative study might feasibly and credibly have been made of such businesses in the Inveraray area – the first small town on the Argyll side of the closure.

From first hand evidence, we can attest that Inveraray, reached by the A83, was a ghost town over the closure period. Virtually nothing was coming from the north where the road was closed. Traffic from the south with an imperative to get out of Argyll was diverting at Lochgilphead to take the A816 to Oban, for the A85 into the long haul diversion via Crianlarich and the A82 to Loch Lomond and Glasgow. Only traffic from the small nearby villages of Minard and Furnace was going into Inveraray to divert up Loch Awe on the A819.

Delays in delivery of supplies to businesses, hotels and restaurants itself created additional costs.

For example, during the period in question, The George Hotel in Inveraray had a wedding reception booked in – and inadequate supplies of champagne to serve. The hotel hired Loch Lomond Seaplanes to deliver the champagne to Inveraray pier.

Yes, this was a move made to underline in as public a manner as possible just what the loss of the A83 access was doing to businesses in Argyll – but that message was a true one and sending it cost The George. It was, though, able to deliver the wedding reception the couple had commissioned.

Coach tours

Transport Scotland’s study has not contacted coach tour companies to establish what they did during this A83 closure period.

Inveraray is a common browsing visit for coach tours. Did those tour operators normally bringing their clients to Inveraray before going to overnight in Dalmally or Oban take the A82 detour north, drive past Dalmally and go back south to Inveraray as planned – and then go back north again for their prebooked bednights?

Did they choose to generate and absorb as much additional fuel cost as possible? Or did they simply take their passengers elsewhere before feeding them and putting them to bed?

Either way, there are economic impacts that must be part of what this study purports to be.

Public transport operators – buses

Ironically, Transport Scotland did not consult this service industry sector.

These operators had to continue to provide their scheduled services as best they could, adding on the diversion time, making and paying for additional driver arrangements and absorbing the substantial costs of increased fuel usage.

They could not legally pass on their increased costs in higher passenger fares. There is a regulatory 30 day delay imposed on any rise in fares charged.

But such businesses did not only have to take the pain of additional fuel costs. They saw a drop in passenger numbers – with less revenue to counter the higher costs.

No one travelled during that period who did not absolutely have to travel.

Take the Scottish Citylink route from Campbeltown to Glasgow – a three hour run. Who, by choice, would add an hour each way to a day out?

We have talked to the service operator and discovered that there was indeed a marked decline in passenger numbers on this route during the 12-13 days of the A83 closure in November 2007.

The study did not collect such data not take it into account as an economic impact.

Public transport operators – Islay ferry

The A83 delivers traffic and passengers between Glasgow and the Isle of Islay,via the ferry port at Kennacraig on West Loch Tarbert.

Islay has eight single malt whisky distilleries, major employers in a business with a stellar international profiles and ubstantial haulage needs.

Islay is also a year round visitor destination with a sound and growing tourism sector.

It is inconceivable that the closure of the A83 and the long diversion involved did not have measurable economic impacts on the whisky distilleries, in lost traffic on the CalMac ferries to the island and in lost visitor spend at the other end.

Te Isle of Jura at this time of year is solely dependent on the ferry to neighbouring Islay to deliver supplies and business visits within reach of the little inter-island vehivle and passenger ferry across the Sound of Islay

The Transport Scotland study made no attempt to address or measure any of these impacts.

Opportunity cost

In the normal economic sense, opportunity cost is, in choosing one option, the cost you pay for what might have been missed opportunities in the option you rejected.

In the case of the closure of the A83, the choice of route is involuntary but still involves a form of opportunity cost that has economic impacts.

With the diversion, the likelihood is that drivers and passengers will get hungry at Tyndrum and spend on refreshments at The Green Welly or The Real Food Cafe – instead of, as they might otherwise have done, at the Oyster Bar or the Tree Shop cafe at Cairndow – or at Brambles, Mr Pia’s, The George or The Argyll in Inveraray.

Transport Scotland did not ask the Tyndrum food providers or the Cairndow and Inveraray ones about any changes to their business volumes in the A83 closure period.

Conclusions

This Transport Scotland ‘economic impact study’ is about as low rent an effort as it gets.

It cannot be used as the basis for any serious understanding of the economic impact within and outwith Argyll of closures of the A83.

It must not be used to support any notion that there is no urgency in implementing a permanent solution to the A83′s vulnerability to landslides at Rest and Be Thankful.

It has not begun to consider the majority of the factors central to such a study.

It presents a figure of £320,000 as the total cost to the nation of the October/November 2007  closure. It declares that this figure is likely to overestimate the actuality.

In the light of the substantial issues listed above, which the study has simply ignored, the reality is that this figure will very substantially underestimate the cost to Argyll (and thence to the nation) of the loss of access provided by this lifeline route.

And if a closure of this road were to happen in the summer season – and with the current prolonged very wet weather, that is in the frame – the economic impact would be profound.

This juvenile and misleading three year old paper was presented  – as evidence – to the Scottish Parliament’s’ Public Petitions Committee by one of the major departments of government.

It may have been produced in the regime of the hapless Transport Minister, Stewart Stevenson – undone by snow – but one assumes some responsible senior officer at least read it before submitting it now to the Petitions Committee.

Why was it considered useful to present such a document to the committee?

There are two possibler interpretations here.

Transport Scotland civil servants, on this evidence, don’t know what an economic impact study demands and have no reason to suspect that MSPs know any better?

Alternatively, this study was deliberately and strategically incompetent?

Limiting it to the most superficial impacts possible and setting their evaluation in a national and not an Argyll context allowed Transport Scotland to come up with the footling figure of £320,000 – which in nothing at all in national terms and less than a headline figure in Argyll terms.

This persuades politicians that there is no urgency in spending money on a permanent solution to the vulnerability of this road to Argyll and the Isles – and that the sort of patch-and-make-do contingencies currently proposed are all that is needed.

Which interpretation is more likely to be correct? Who knows. Neither reassures on competence and integrity where we must have it.

What is indisputable is that a full economic impact study would tell a very different story, especially when set against the modest economy of Argyll and the Isles.

What is unarguable is that a permanent solution must be in progress with an early end date by December 2012.

Argyll has had more than enough of this – and of being gulled.

Note: Here is the full text of the ‘economic impact evaluation presented by Transport Scotland to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee: Transport Scotland 02 07 12

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

10 Responses to Transport Scotland non ‘economic impact analysis’ of 2007 A83 landslide

  1. The inadequacies in this study surely mirror the historic government mindset.
    The delay in improving the A82 between Balloch and Tarbet until the traffic overload had reached nonsensical proportions, and the long-term reluctance to face up to the engineering challenges of making the A82 fit for purpose between Tarbet and Ardlui, and the A83 between Ardrishaig and Tarbert, point to a political establishment that all too often has its eyes fixed firmly on the major areas of population – and has its back turned on us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. “The A83 is the only route in and out of – and right through Argyll down to Campbeltown, from the central belt.”

    No, it is possible to cross the Firth of Clyde by vehicle ferry though that has now been reduced by the Government and Transport Scotland to a single monopoly operator with no price/profit control.

    “it notes but does not quantify that there will have been some additional traffic on the Cowal ferries during the closure at the Rest. Everyone’s proverbial granny could have told us that – and did.”

    Of course Transport Scotland did not quantify it because it would have been embarrassing to highlight that an important part of the transport network had been made into a monopoly.

    “Transport Scotland civil servants, on this evidence, don’t know what an economic impact study demands and have no reason to suspect that MSPs know any better?”

    Probably both. Transport Scotland are imcompetent and they know our MSP Michael Russell daydreams about tunnels.

    Are you suggesting Newsroom that the Government is underinvesting in the West of Scotland and going about things in an incompetent manner? Would that not be an exaggeration after all they are thinking about doing something, sometime and if the A83 is closed you have alternatives of the A82 and the monopoly ferry service. Many communities would give their eye teeth for such a selection surely?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. “The hotel hired Loch Lomond Seaplanes to deliver the champagne to Inveraray pier.”

    Does that mean it was cheaper to fly things in than to take a van over on Western Ferries? WF don’t display their commercial rates on their website, perhaps they don’t want to make the natives restless by advertising the surcharge on goods moving in and out of Cowal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Ah – a van delivery via Cowal would not have attracted the publicity the arrival of the seaplane at Inveraray did.

      We’d hoped to make clear that The George was saying as loudly as possible ‘Look what the loss of this road access is doing to businesses here. We can’t fulfil our obligations to customers.’

      The national media paid swift attention but not, apparently, Transport Scotland who conveniently ignored the impacts on businesses in this non-study.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. See Lochgoilhead didnt get a mention AGAIN, when that road is closed we have no public transport to Glasgow as Helensburgh bus wont come long way, and it takes us an extra 60 miles to get to Glasgow, but we get no sympathy as especially for a small village who rely on tourism and people wont drive the detour as it too long and the ferry is too expensive !!!!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • There was a driver of a commercial van looking for a ferry at the CalMac pier this morning. I sent him along to Western. He was concerned about prices but I could not advise him as they don’t publish commercial rates on their website. It is a bit much that as people have to turn up before finding out how much it will cost.

      I have heard the commercial rates are high and, if they are, we all end up paying through increased costs for goods and services.

      I have every sympathy with Lochgoilhead. No doubt the newroom position is that you are spoilt for choice with roads and ferry services.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Pingback: Argyll News: A83 stakeholders meeting: report and issues | For Argyll

  6. Pingback: Argyll News: A83: Evaluation of Jacobs’ study and recommendations | ForArgyll Mobile Version

  7. This passed me by as I was at sea when it was published; a snow job of the first water, a report with no useful facts in it. Using data I’ve made up plus a cursory look at wikipedia, by my calculations the road closures have cost Argyll £3.1m per day and heightened landslide risk warnings have cost £250k per day. It’s fun doing this report writing thing; is there money in it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Yes db there is always money in the report writing business
    and those without substance such as the above are really useful as a delaying tactic. Keep musing,and naval gazing for long enough and the problem might just quietly go away…its only Argyll after all, so why should we expect road safety and a thriving economy?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.