Construction jobs are frequently claimed as a benefit from the implementation of transport (and other) investment options. Similarly, the employment of people to operate transport equipment and maintain the infrastructure is also frequently claimed as a benefit. However, a number of factors affect the validity of such claims.
Construction jobs tend to be temporary, often using outside labour, and are unlikely to contribute to local employment in the longer term. The construction sector, like many other areas, also has a high incidence of skill shortages, and the use of construction labour for one project will in such areas simply displace that labour from other projects, resulting in delays to other work and/or escalation of construction costs. In other areas, where there is spare capacity in the construction sector, it might be reasonable to argue that the employment associated with the implementation of a transport option represents an employment benefit at the local level. This would have more validity if the labour were drawn from regeneration or other policy priority areas.
Similar arguments apply to labour required to operate a new transport option, and here direct displacement of employment arising from, for example, transfer of travellers from one mode to another should also be considered.
In quantifying such employment impacts, the principles set out above regarding temporal additionality should be applied.
