Transport Spending Inequality

[Haywain]

Hebden Bridge to Manchester is a lot further than Limehouse to Paddington.

 

[Magdalia]

Transport projects, when under construction, take ages to build and the benefits are not seen until after the system has been open for long enough, meaning it’s still seen as a failure until it has been open for at least a year.

Putting a tram in is hugely disruptive whilst it's happening, and the benefits don't become apparent for a refund. Even tunneling can be a bit disruptive - there were loads of building sites through central London as part of crossrail construction.

During Crossrail construction I had direct experience of the disruption around Liverpool Street, Farringdon and Tottenham Court Road. It was massive for road traffic, including buses, and and for local businesses. At Farringdon and Tottenham Court Road it also involved a significant amount of demolition of existing buildings.

London is a very big city that can absorb the costs of disruption, and relocate businesses where necessary. In smaller cities, the disruption costs are more disproportionate compared with total activity.

I dislike this misunderstanding that London somehow subsidises the rest of the UK. London is where the HQs are and where the higher salaries (and resultant taxes, when not avoided) are paid for the people who work in them, but the money that pays for this doesn’t come from some magic money tree in Trafalgar Square, it is provided by the labour of workers across the nation (and across the globe) and they have an equal shout for infrastructure and services to give them a decent quality of life.

London subsidising the rest of the UK isn't a misunderstanding, it is an economic fact. The fruits of the labour of each worker are not equal, some add a lot more value than others, and that is reflected in what they earn and how much tax they pay. You are right that there is no magic money tree in Trafalgar Square, but there are a lot more people adding a lot more value in London than elsewhere. Compared with London, the rest of the UK has fewer people who add lots of value, more people who add less value, and more people who add no value at all.

 

[Harpo]

I was shocked on a recent visit to London that using contactless payment, a journey between Limehouse and Paddington cost under £4 for around a 45 minute journey. A comparable journey time between Hebden Bridge and Manchester Victoria costs £13!

Based on distance (rather than journey time) the Hebden Bridge to Manchester fare is cheaper.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The way I see it, is that rail fares are roughly the same nationwide. It is unfair to expect Northerners to pay the same, expensive fares as people in the south, when more investment goes into the south. If fares were cheaper in the north than the south, I wouldn't mind the unequal spending, but unfortunately this is not the case. I was shocked on a recent visit to London that using contactless payment, a journey between Limehouse and Paddington cost under £4 for around a 45 minute journey. A comparable journey time between Hebden Bridge and Manchester Victoria costs £13! Where investment is less, fares should be less!

But ‘rail fares’ aren’t funding the investment. In most cases they aren’t even (in total) covering the cost of moving the train the fare payer is riding on. That has to be topped up with ‘subsidy’. Investment in whatever form is typically being further funded by ‘government’ grants or sometimes other sources.

 

[quartile]

Based on distance (rather than journey time) the Hebden Bridge to Manchester fare is cheaper.

and much cheaper compared to similar length NR journey into London. It's £22 for 35 miles /45 mins from Farnborough to London Waterloo, not sure what investment this line has had recently

 

[Horizon22]

A lot of people advocating for more investment in northern English cities aren't necessarily advocating for doing this at the expense of a London/SE investment.

Quite a few definitely are.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

But the size of the benefit is much smaller to...

I agree but then it just becomes a vicious circle. So you spend more in the south because you get more benefit so there is better transport so more people relocate there so it needs more spending. Doesn't help that all/most of the civil service is based in the south. As I said, vicious circle.

 

[styles]

Quite a few definitely are.

And quite a few aren't

 

[Magdalia]

Doesn't help that all/most of the civil service is based in the south.

This isn't true. Only about 20% of civil servants are based in London. The next highest region is the North West with about 13%.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This isn't true. Only about 20% of civil servants are based in London. The next highest region is the North West with about 13%.

Wow. Thanks for that. I am out of touch. I did not know that.

 

[The exile]

This isn't true. Only about 20% of civil servants are based in London. The next highest region is the North West with about 13%.

Now what about the split at Permanent Secretary and above? Ie the ones who set the culture if not the agenda.

 

[Magdalia]

Now what about the split at Permanent Secretary and above

There is nothing above Permanent Secretary.

Of the Senior Civil Service (grade 5 and above) about 58% are in London.

 

[JamesT]

You don't have to.

Given the limits to spending that Government has, how do you invest in the North without dropping some of the investment in the South?

 

[styles]

This isn't true. Only about 20% of civil servants are based in London. The next highest region is the North West with about 13%.

While true, the majority of policy advisors will be London/SE England based. 'Civil servants' cover everything from JobCentre Employment Advisors to DVSA Driving Examiners (grade EO) to Receptionists to Data Entry Clerks (grades AO/AA). All the way up to Senior Civil Servants, Grade 6/7s and HEOs, more likely to be influencing or writing policy.

According to the Cabinet Office, London accounts for 68.4% of those Civil Servants working in Economics, 61.7% in Corporate Finance, and 60.2% in Policy. The people deciding or proposing where the money is spent, are in London.

It is slowly changing of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2025 ==

Given the limits to spending that Government has, how do you invest in the North without dropping some of the investment in the South?

These are self-imposed limits. Even the OBR etc could have an economic policy shift if the lawmakers decided so.

 

[ainsworth74]

London subsidising the rest of the UK isn't a misunderstanding, it is an economic fact. The fruits of the labour of each worker are not equal, some add a lot more value than others, and that is reflected in what they earn and how much tax they pay. You are right that there is no magic money tree in Trafalgar Square, but there are a lot more people adding a lot more value in London than elsewhere. Compared with London, the rest of the UK has fewer people who add lots of value, more people who add less value, and more people who add no value at all.

Though, of course, that's an argument to do nothing but allow the regions outside London and the South East to continue to wither on vine which doesn't exactly seem sensible. Investing in enhanced infrastructure in the North and elsewhere to help increase economic output and productivity would help reduce the strain on London and the South East in many ways. As well as being a good thing for the people in those regions and elsewhere.

I get it. The cost:benefit says the best return on investment is by spending more on London and the South East (which do still need plenty of investment to be clear it cannot be either/or) but that's just circular logic that simply locks in the status quo for evermore!

 

[Zomboid]

It's a tricky conundrum - London, like it or not, is the engine of the economy. It needs investment to keep it running smoothly and so it can be considered as playing in the same league as Frankfurt and New York and so on. The whole country's economy will suffer if London struggles.

But the rest of the country also needs investment, so that the major cities are proper players on the national stage, even if the global stage that London competes on is beyond them in the medium term.

It needs to be a sensible version of "do both", or everyone suffers.

 

[The exile]

I get it. The cost:benefit says the best return on investment is by spending more on London and the South East (which do still need plenty of investment to be clear it cannot be either/or) but that's just circular logic that simply locks in the status quo for evermore!

I’m sure all kind of weighting is done to avoid this kind of effect, but inevitably on paper a £20 million investment that shaves 30seconds off the journey time each way of 250,000 people daily in London is going to increase productivity on paper more than the same amount of money spent to lop 15 minutes off the journey time for 5,000 somewhere else. In reality - those 250000 are barely going to notice, whereas the 5000 may well improve their productivity.

 

[Djgr]

There is nothing above Permanent Secretary.

Of the Senior Civil Service (grade 5 and above) about 58% are in London.

It is worth stating that one of the 58% costs the taxpayer more than one of the equivalent 42% located elsewhere within the UK.

Let's hope that one of the 58ers is adding additional value.

 

[styles]

It is worth stating that one of the 58% costs the taxpayer more than one of the equivalent 42% located elsewhere within the UK.

Let's hope that one of the 58ers is adding additional value.

Is that a direct cost based on salary/compensation package; or does it factor in cost of office leasing, local and long-distance travel, etc?

 

[FrontSideBus]

I've always said that the UK is a very poor country with a very rich city attached to it. So of course you are going to get more money spent in London because there is that many people there. I mean just look at one station on the Underground, there is like a train every 2 minutes and each one is jam packed.
In the North West, you're lucky to get 2tph and you are never short of a seat.
This new Liverpool to Manchester railway that is being discussed... who's it actually for? It certainly won't improve the railway links of the people who are on the original intercity line.

 

[Allwinter_Kit]

It's all treasury-brain. As you say, lopping unnoticeable seconds off a journey in London is probably worth more than minutes off a journey in Bradford, but if all we do is spend in London then we add more fuel to the same fire. And this has knock on impacts outside of transport - more housing demand in the south east than any where else, and we need to get water to the south east as the aquifers can't cope, and we need to get more energy to the south east because that's where the demand is.

Investing elsewhere to help lessen that demand - housing, water, energy, transport, schools, hospitals etc. Isn't a bad idea. Enabling regional cities to take on more jobs, housing, education, health enables the country to develop more equitably and make life better for people both in and out of London. Yes London needs Crossrail2, yes London needs the Bakerloo extension and revamp, but so does Leeds need HS2, Newcastle need Metro Extensions and Manchester a better Metrolink.

The best answer is "yes and", the worst answer is "only London" and that is where we have been for a long time (cf. HS2, Elizabeth Line, etc.).

Transport is a "good thing" and we should invest in enabling more of it to be done without a car across the entire country. Be that Penzance to Truro or Berwick to Newcastle, London to Reading or Manchester to Leeds. The trouble is - under current guidance- we'll ignore everything but the London - Reading option at the moment based on a spreadsheet, compounding the problem for ever more.

So... it's not an either/or, it's a yes/and - the trouble is that the green book currently forbids the latter. Let's... let it happen?

 

[Horizon22]

I get it. The cost:benefit says the best return on investment is by spending more on London and the South East (which do still need plenty of investment to be clear it cannot be either/or) but that's just circular logic that simply locks in the status quo for evermore!

I do agree on the circular logic point. London in many ways is too big and our 2nd/3rd/4th cities should be "levelled up" (a good phrase but now badly associated!) with the infrastructure, services and population that make them more viable instead of everything being about "London". It's certainly mentioned more as an ideal, but little in the way of action.

Leeds is a good example as I think the largest city in Europe without some for of metro/tram. It has a couple of suburban rail stations and that is it.

That being said, if the infrastucture is willing and ready to be paid by lots of Londoners (including businesses, taxpayers and TfL themselves), with a strong business case, the Treasury should still be willing to provide the money need. And there are lots of projects (Bakerloo line refurbishment & extension, DLR extensions, Crossrail 2) that have plenty of the project planning behind them which might fall into these categories. And as mentioned above, the fact that such a large city needs public transport to function properly where it isn't so critical for others.

 

[Allwinter_Kit]

I would also add that threads like this:

Are some trains too long?

Considering that overcrowding and lack of capacity is a huge problem across much of the railway network, I think the question of a train being too long with many free seats is actually a good reflection of the new rolling stock. Of course being articulated Stadler stock in this instance I am...

www.railforums.co.uk

Are about trains in the south east being quiet in the interpeak. We all say "but yes this is merited because of the rush hour, demand peaks, etc."

But when Northern seek longer trains, the arguments are always "but the demand is only in the peaks, the rest of the time you're carrying air."

So it's not to say that either approach is right, but it is to say that the standards applied in different parts of the country are.... different. And part of that is a result of investment in the south meaning that the marginal cost of extra carriages is much lower than in the north. So we do need to look at how we cost things across the nation and whether we are getting good outcomes across the strategic and economic business cases, rather than focusing purely on the latter.

 

[Horizon22]

Are about trains in the south east being quiet in the interpeak. We all say "but yes this is merited because of the rush hour, demand peaks, etc."

But when Northern seek longer trains, the arguments are always "but the demand is only in the peaks, the rest of the time you're carrying air."

I suppose there may be a difference in the ratio of the peak to off-peak demand in different cities. There is also an operational convenience with a minimal extra cost. That's helpful if you already have the fleet, not so if more units are required!

 

[amahy]

I would also add that threads like this:

Are some trains too long?

Considering that overcrowding and lack of capacity is a huge problem across much of the railway network, I think the question of a train being too long with many free seats is actually a good reflection of the new rolling stock. Of course being articulated Stadler stock in this instance I am...

www.railforums.co.uk

Are about trains in the south east being quiet in the interpeak. We all say "but yes this is merited because of the rush hour, demand peaks, etc."

But when Northern seek longer trains, the arguments are always "but the demand is only in the peaks, the rest of the time you're carrying air."

So it's not to say that either approach is right, but it is to say that the standards applied in different parts of the country are.... different. And part of that is a result of investment in the south meaning that the marginal cost of extra carriages is much lower than in the north. So we do need to look at how we cost things across the nation and whether we are getting good outcomes across the strategic and economic business cases, rather than focusing purely on the latter.

The prime example for this is Cross Country. The main excuse for XC not having long enough trains is always that their trains mostly meet demand, and that overcrowding to the point where trains become unboardable is very localised. If trains can run around London empty for most of the day, why can't XC's trains do the same?

 

[Djgr]

Is that a direct cost based on salary/compensation package; or does it factor in cost of office leasing, local and long-distance travel, etc?

As a taxpayer the reasons are irrelevant

 

[The exile]

Leeds is a good example as I think the largest city in Europe without some for of metro/tram. It has a couple of suburban rail stations and that is it.

I was surprised when comparing with Germany (fairly well known for its tram and underground systems) that the largest German city without trams (excluding Hamburg & Wuppertal which have alternatives) is Münster - at 307K population. My surprise is that England only has 5 larger tram-less cities (Leeds, Bristol, Leicester, Coventry and Bradford - although German city boundaries tend to be more contiguous with the actual built-up area than some of ours do). It is, of course, the next level down where the massive difference comes - we only have 2 systems in smaller towns (though Blackpool and Croydon are hardly small) - Germany over 25.

 

[Horizon22]

I was surprised when comparing with Germany (fairly well known for its tram and underground systems) that the largest German city without trams (excluding Hamburg & Wuppertal which have alternatives) is Münster - at 307K population. My surprise is that England only has 5 larger tram-less cities (Leeds, Bristol, Leicester, Coventry and Bradford - although German city boundaries tend to be more contiguous with the actual built-up area than some of ours do). It is, of course, the next level down where the massive difference comes - we only have 2 systems in smaller towns (though Blackpool and Croydon are hardly small) - Germany over 25.

Off-topic a little but on the "contiguous urban area" it is not infeasible that once a 'Stage 1' of trams came into play in Leeds they could not eventually be extended to the likes of Bradford / Wakefield / Castleford.

 

[styles]

As a taxpayer the reasons are irrelevant

That wasn't the question though - the question is whether that figure is the total net cost of a civil servant being based inside vs outside London; or merely the total employment cost as recorded by HR.

If it is only the cost of compensating that member of staff, then the savings are likely greater are office rents will be cheaper up north for example; though if it results in a greater deal of travel to/from London (including productivity) then the savings may be partially offset.

One might expect that moving DWP's software development teams to say Newcastle would save money, but moving DVSA's policy office to Truro may not.

 

[Haywain]

Off-topic a little but on the "contiguous urban area" it is not infeasible that once a 'Stage 1' of trams came into play in Leeds they could not eventually be extended to the likes of Bradford / Wakefield / Castleford.

Too many negatives there to make it clear what you're trying to say.