The economics of railway safety

This paper reviews the statistics and economics of railway safety in Great Britain, the European Union and the United States, together with some results for Finland and Japan. In these countries railway safety has improved over recent decades. That finding applies both to train accidents and to personal accidents such as persons struck by trains. Fatal train collisions and derailments command most attention even though they are infrequent and account for only a small minority of railway fatalities. Great Britain, the EU and the USA formally espouse conventional cost benefit analysis for the appraisal of railway safety measures, using the same valuations for the prevention of casualties as are used in road safety appraisal. However there are often strong institutional, legal and political pressures towards adopting railway safety measures with safety benefit: cost ratios well below 1. The best-documented examples of this are automatic train protection systems, which are discussed in the paper. Apart from trespassers, the largest group of railway fatalities occur at level crossings, which the paper also discusses. Level crossing safety measures would seem to be an appropriate subject for cost benefit analysis, but there are few case-studies in the literature. Over the last few decades, the railways in many countries have been privatised or deregulated with the aim of improving their economic performance. Such changes have the potential to affect safety. The paper reviews evidence of the effects on safety of railway restructuring in Great Britain, Japan and the United State, and finds no evidence that safety deteriorated.     

Evaluating the long term impacts of transport policy: The case of passenger rail privatisation

Britain's national rail system was ‘privatised’ as a result of the 1993 Railways Act, with most of the organisational and ownership changes implemented by 1997. This paper examines the long term impacts of these changes. A key issue when examining long term changes is that of the counterfactual – what would have happened if the changes had not occurred? A simple econometric model of the demand for passenger rail services was developed and used in conjunction with extrapolative methods for key variables such as fares and train km to determine demand-side counterfactuals. Extrapolative methods were also used to determine counterfactual infrastructure and train operation costs. Although our results are sensitive to the assumptions we have made concerning the counterfactual they suggest a number of impacts. Since privatisation, rail demand has grown strongly but our analysis indicates that transitional disruptions suppressed demand by around 9% over a prolonged period (1992/3 to 2005/6), whilst the Hatfield accident reduced demand by about 5%, albeit over a shorter period (2000/1 to 2006/7). A welfare analysis suggests that although consumers seem to have gained as a result of privatisation, for most years this has been offset by increases in costs. An exception is provided by the two years immediately before the Hatfield accident. Overall the loss in welfare since the reforms were introduced far exceeds the net receipts from the sale of rail businesses. Thus although the reforms have had advantages in terms of lower fares and better service levels than otherwise would have been the case, this appears to have been offset by increased infrastructure and train operations costs. The source of these high costs remains an area of speculation but appear to be related to aspects of both market and regulatory failure.