Observation 5: High cost per job created

I am wholeheartedly in favour of sustainable rural development for the area. However, there are many aspects of the proposals which appear to be poorly thought through, several of which would have a negative impact and the overall costings offer a very poor return of quality employment for the expenditure involved.

1. In order for this proposal to succeed it must do one of 2 things:
   a) it must attract more visitors to the area &/or
   b) change the spending patterns of existing visitors - if the effect is to simply move the spending from one location in the park to another then the expenditure on the scheme will be wasted.
   Nowhere is there any mention of how the proposal will achieve either of the above. Without meeting one or both of these objectives it can only be read as a plan to control transport and create local employment.
2. As a plan to create employment it comes nowhere near to providing an economic return.
   Figures quoted in the proposal include:

   ? Initial outlay of £7 million to potentially create 107 new jobs (i.e £65,000/job).

   ? Bus transportation and parking component cost of £3 million to create 63-65 new jobs (i.e £46,000/job).

   ? Conservative projected increase in visitor spend of £6 million to create 196 new jobs (i.e £30,000/job).

   ? Optimistic projected increase in visitor spend of £25 million to create 790 new jobs (i.e £30,000/job).

   Whilst in no way suggesting that the following projects are directly equivalent comparison of these projected costs per job with costs per job recently achieved by other means reveals some dramatic contrasts:

   ? Funding through The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland in 2000-2001 achieved £7,254 average cost per job

   ? In the DTI/National Assembly for Wales/Scotland Executive report - Evaluation of Regional Selective Assistance Grants the net cost per net job (achieved) was £17,500 (against a more optimistic "average grant offer per job forecast was £6,641 in Development Areas and £3,709 in Intermediate areas"

   ? Expenditure on The New Deal for DIsabled People Personal Adviser Service 2001 achieved £9,300 cost per job (including start-up expenses) at its most inefficient.

   ? DEFRA's England Rural Development Programme (2000-2006) has achieved cost per job: £1500 via the Redundant Buildings Grant in south west England since the early 1980s.

   A study produced by the Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago in 1997 showed that in the US "creating one local job-year requires national government purchases from local firms in the amount of $56,000 to $91,000" (c. £63,000). On this basis it is tempting to suggest that the benefits to the local economy of the proposal made by Gwynedd Council would be little more than if they simply sourced all purchases locally - without incurring the multi-million pound outlays under consideration here.

3. The case for a sustainable environmental policy for the area's road system makes no reference to the fact that there are several trunk routes passing through the national park. No breakdown is given for the road usage by tourist visitors and for through traffic - en route to the Holyhead ferry to Ireland and other destinations. Without this information no reasonable judgement can be made of the validity of any proposal to ease the impact of road traffic on the immediate environment.
   Furthermore, proposals (4.8 in the strategy document) to utilise roadside space in order to create 'safe cycle and pedestrian routes' will at best produce a corridor alongside which the cyclist/pedestrian will have to endure a continued stream of heavy goods vehicles and coaches which will continue to make use of the main road system in the area. There is no indication why visitors should be attracted to use such developments, which would offer an environment little better than the average urban clearway, nor is there any indication that any type of consultation exercise has been conducted with intended user groups.
   On the other hand the disused road and rail system along the arterial routes in question could be economically developed into cycle ways and better pedestrian routes which would provide a realistic attraction to visitors and may actually increase visitor numbers to the area. This particular proposal in the consultation document provides little more than an unsustainable reason for completely removing roadside parking along these highways.
   I also fail to see how a policy of providing short term parking can do anything more than keep vehicles on the move - thereby increasing their impact on the area rather than the opposite !

Next Observation

Back