It wasn’t a lack
of money which, allegedly, drove the decision to cancel this part of the
electrification project, but an analysis of the cost-benefit ratio, which concluded
that the scheme was not good value for money, using the criteria laid down by
the government itself. But whether those
criteria are valid or not is ultimately a question of judgement. They are based, broadly, on a comparison between
the cost of doing the work and the value of the time saved by passengers; but
given the well-known problems of the railway line west of Cardiff, the time savings
were always going to be minimal for that section of track. It’s much harder to put hard cash values on
other benefits of the scheme, such as increased reliability and reduced
environmental costs - both from moving away from diesel and attracting more
traffic from the roads.
However, the idea that
money, once allocated to a scheme in Wales, should be available for other
schemes in Wales if the original scheme is cancelled is one with which I’m
hardly going to disagree. The logic of
that, though, is that the money and the responsibility should have been
allocated to Wales in the first place. Then we could have decided whether to electrify or not. The strangest part of all in the story from Westminster is that the man
demanding the money comes to Wales anyway is historically one of those most
opposed to devolving extra responsibilities to Wales. Still, he’s a Tory – logic and consistency
are not to be expected.
No comments:
Post a Comment