Focusing on Glasgow rail link would be money well spent

AS ANY economics student can point out, the cost of not spending money has just as many consequences as spending.

The key is making the right decisions on what to spend on. When it comes to the public purse we rely on the government of the day to make these decisions to minimise the "opportunity cost". Or make sure our limited financial resources are put to best use.

For example, if the Westminster government had not made a decision to commit 300 million plus on a car scrappage scheme, then an industry employing tens of thousands of people could have collapsed.

But sometimes they can get it horribly wrong.

I can't help wonder why a business case has yet to made for cancelling Glasgow's Airport Rail Link, while the Waverley Borders Rail Link presses ahead.

The cancellation decision was debated by parliament last week and it looks increasingly likely to be ratified.

But surely the only justification for millions of pounds of expenditure on capital projects should be economic benefit.

Is spending taxpayer's money in a certain way going to create jobs and greater prosperity for the people of Scotland and if so to what extent?

In an ideal world the Borders should have a rail connection. The area would benefit from better connections, making it easier to attract more and better jobs.

With new stations, firms would be flocking to move out of the city centre to lower-cost rural locations. But then maybe not.

In 2002 Scottish Enterprise commissioned a study into the viability of the Waverley Borders Rail Link.

It estimated that between 63 and 213 long-term jobs would be created in the Borders by the construction of the rail link and up to 4.9m could be generated for the local economy. The report also reported benefits from several hundred short-term construction jobs. Meanwhile, the economic impact on Midlothian and Edinburgh of reopening the rail link would be "minimal".

All this for 295m; even at the optimistic end of the forecast this works out at more than 1m per job created.

On purely economic reasoning this is hardly a bargain.

Now compare this with the economic impact work done on the proposed Glasgow Airport link.

Even without taking account of the so far incalculable benefits the link might have in relation to the Commonwealth Games, the case, when compared to the Waverley project looks cast-iron.

The estimated cost of the Glasgow link is 395m, of which 47m has already been spent and will be lost if the plug is pulled.

The job-creation estimate for this expenditure is 1,300 by the completion of the link – about six times the direct economic return of the Border rail link in job numbers.

The recent State of the City Conference said statistics showed that Glasgow was weathering the economic crisis better than most and was well placed for recovery.

Aborting such an important infrastructure project will hardly help this predicted recovery.

Work on the Waverley link has far from passed the point of no return; there is nothing to stop the government from reversing its decision and switching the scarce resources planned for the Waverley link west.

But then maybe these decisions are nothing to do with economic common sense, reason, or even short-term political dogma.

Maybe Glasgow's project was sunk as soon as it was christened with an acronym, Garl.

Surely planners should have learned a lesson from the ill-fated Earl, the scrapped Edinburgh Airport Rail Link?

If only a suitable moniker could be found for the Borders project. The Waverley Rail Open Network Gateway perhaps, or Wrong for short.

• Craig Cowbrough is the owner of Glasgow-based Cowbrough Communications.