£500m Growing Places Fund AND possible £5bn infrastructure plan

[IanXC]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/18/lib-dems-income-tax-threshold

Now [Danny] Alexander will disburse a "Growing Places fund", which he hopes enable the creation of local infrastructure across England.

"£500m to deliver key infrastructure and unlock development and create jobs. Providing a one-off upfront capital investment to kickstart developments that are stalled due to cash flow problems or lack of confidence.

"Putting local areas in the driving seat, enabling local government to invest in the key strategic infrastructure projects that they have identified as priorities and getting people into work."

Alexander said: "As Liberal Democrats, our judgments about what needs to be done should be driven by the liberal economy we want to build – sustainable, balanced, competitive, fair. To get there we must break down the vested interests – the enemies of growth that stand in the way of future prosperity."

"Too many businesses are being held back by congested roads, slow railways, inadequate broadband. Now more than ever, we need to get on with this work."

Thoughts on what such projects should and could be?

 

[bluenoxid]

Some of the projects that fail this round of transport funding. NUCKLE, Todmorden Curve, Additional Stations in West Yorkshire.

Haxby has drawn right to a halt. This could push it forward.

 

[route:oxford]

Time for me to be greedy for my local area.

Let's get the E-W link re-opened and electrified between Oxford & Bletchley.

Likewise Witney-Wheatley re-opened for passenger services (with large parkway car-parks at each end) would take 1000s of cars out of Oxford city centre and off A roads every day.

Also significant infrastructure improvements at Oxford Station to accommodate the new services.

Further afield, doubling as much of Leamington-Coventry as possible (along with electrication) ready to meet up with the Great Western Mainline electrification project.

With what's left (if any) sort any flat crossings that are left on on the East Coast Mainline.

 

[First class]

Bidston-Wrexham, Ellesmere Port-Helsby, Burscough Curves, electrification Kirkby-Wigan, Ormskirk-Preston...

 

[anthony263]

Bidston-Wrexham, Ellesmere Port-Helsby, Burscough Curves, electrification Kirkby-Wigan, Ormskirk-Preston...

I agree with the wrexham Central - Bidston line, why it hasnt been done yet is stupid. I know there was a argument between Merseyrail & Network rail on how much 3rd rail extension would cost with merseyrail, saying they could do it a lot cheaper than what network rail had quoted.

Hopefully someone will see some sense and get it done.

Maybe Parson St - Portishead will finally get re-opened together with some station's on the Henbury Loop @ Filton North & Henbury.

I also think that Oxford - Coventry & Oxford - Bicester - Bletchley should be wired.

 

[IanXC]

OK so just as I was about to post that this turns out to be a policy to 'ensure all the allocated funding is spent' rather than new money... We get this:

Ministers are discussing how to inject up to £5bn into the economy without abandoning their deficit reduction strategy, the BBC understands.

Some Cabinet members believe Chancellor George Osborne could raise capital spending on infrastructure, BBC political editor Nick Robinson says.

The government has faced calls for a "Plan B" on the economy amid flagging growth and rising unemployment.

Some ministers believe as much as £5bn in extra capital spending, on top of what was announced in March's Budget, could be channelled towards the nation's roads, rail and broadband internet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14985709

 

[Rational Plan]

OK so just as I was about to post that this turns out to be a policy to 'ensure all the allocated funding is spent' rather than new money... We get this:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14985709

If they want it to boost the economy then it needs to be spent quick. Are there any projects that have been designed and ready to go. I suspect refurbs and renewals of track and roads will get a quick boost.

 

[anthony263]

wiring the cardiff valley lines and ordering emu's from Bombardier/Hitachi, perhaps some emu's for FGW to use between Cardiff & Bristol

 

[ChiefPlanner]

East - West via By would be a good start - along with confirmed Valley lines wiring.

 

[tbtc]

Ah, the sudden rush to spend money - acknowledgement that Keynsian economics have their place instead of all the macho reduction stuff...

...and this from the Government that pulled investment in things like building schools, suddenly accepting that construction projects are one way of generating economic benefits.

There are plenty places where small scale electrification would have positive benefits, but (due to Thameslink delays etc) there won't be "spare" EMUs to run on them.

Maybe some re-doubling would be the way forward? Dore chord, Runcorn chord, that kind of thing?

 

[Metrailway]

East - West via By would be a good start - along with confirmed Valley lines wiring.

East - West would make sense as the Oxford - Cambridge arc is the UK's version of 'Silicon valley'.

Ah, the sudden rush to spend money - acknowledgement that Keynsian economics have their place instead of all the macho reduction stuff...

...and this from the Government that pulled investment in things like building schools, suddenly accepting that construction projects are one way of generating economic benefits.

I'm no economic guru but as I understand it, this is a proposal of a 'one-off' £5bn injection of capital spending, such as major infrastructure projects which lasts for decades, and thus has no effect on current spending, which is the money spent annually on health, welfare, education etc. It is current spending which is still being cut as it contributes to the structural deficit and all three major political parties agree with deficit reduction.

I believe capital spending does not add to the defecit, as the value of the £5bn money spent is retained within infrastructure for years to come, and thus shown on the balance sheet as a postive value under assets and not just as a loss of £5bn.

On the topic of the school building programme, this programme was not funded directly by HM Treasury, but by a substantial portion of the yearly budget of the DfE. This is because it was not a 'one-off' spend but an annual cost for years to come. Thus, it is considered as current spending and not capital spending.

 

[WatcherZero]

Not strictly true as borrowing to finance capital spending, e.g. building a new school building and paying it off in installments over 20 years. Has been cut by the government. Most capital spending on a local level is always financed through borrowing accounted for in the current spend, its only large government investment financed by public borrowing that hasnt been cut.

 

[IanXC]

wiring the cardiff valley lines and ordering emu's from Bombardier/Hitachi, perhaps some emu's for FGW to use between Cardiff & Bristol

I think this is likely - looking at how GW and NW electrification have been doing "boots on the ground" happened pretty quickly in the scale of things for an infrastructure project. The stock aspect is more difficult... but they could always get WAG to run that procurement!

Other than that I think we're likely to see lots of small projects, chords, redoubling, new stations. Things which are essentially within the railway boundary. Are there any projects like that which would benefit freight?

Ah, the sudden rush to spend money - acknowledgement that Keynsian economics have their place instead of all the macho reduction stuff...

...and this from the Government that pulled investment in things like building schools, suddenly accepting that construction projects are one way of generating economic benefits.

There are plenty places where small scale electrification would have positive benefits, but (due to Thameslink delays etc) there won't be "spare" EMUs to run on them.

Maybe some re-doubling would be the way forward? Dore chord, Runcorn chord, that kind of thing?

I'm not sure that £5bn counts as a Keynesian stimulus... £50bn maybe! I can't see them resorting to the old capital investment programme, the idea is to fund projects which enable other economic growth to take place. As a New Classicist I've always thought we've not been doing enough of this kind of 'enabling works' and it certainly (at this scale, subject to the projects) doesn't make me uncomfortable as there is still plenty of room left in the UK's credibility on the financial markets, for the moment.

Those sound like the kind of projects I recon we'll get. Plus a load of freight projects we've never heard of...

East - West would make sense as the Oxford - Cambridge arc is the UK's version of 'Silicon valley'.

I'm no economic guru but as I understand it, this is a proposal of a 'one-off' £5bn injection of capital spending, such as major infrastructure projects which lasts for decades, and thus has no effect on current spending, which is the money spent annually on health, welfare, education etc. It is current spending which is still being cut as it contributes to the structural deficit and all three major political parties agree with deficit reduction.

I believe capital spending does not add to the defecit, as the value of the £5bn money spent is retained within infrastructure for years to come, and thus shown on the balance sheet as a postive value under assets and not just as a loss of £5bn.

On the topic of the school building programme, this programme was not funded directly by HM Treasury, but by a substantial portion of the yearly budget of the DfE. This is because it was not a 'one-off' spend but an annual cost for years to come. Thus, it is considered as current spending and not capital spending.

East-West: Not sure this will be included - I recon spending is more likely to be targeted on other regions of the UK.

Whether this would add to the deficit rather depends on whether you subscribe to the Gordon Brown method of (not) counting?? "The deficit" per se includes all spending, like a profit and loss account, rather than a balance sheet where yes you could effectively count the value of the infrastructure constructed to offset the cost of building it.

 

[Schnellzug]

It sounds typically vague. "Politicians have been talking vaguely about enormous sums of money, which probably aren't actually new at all but have been invented by some creative accounting." I won't be getting excited just yet.

 

[IanXC]

It sounds typically vague. "Politicians have been talking vaguely about enormous sums of money, which probably aren't actually new at all but have been invented by some creative accounting." I won't be getting excited just yet.

I would usually agree, however I'll reserve judgement till the end of the Tory conference. The source and the timing lead me to think there might be something in it.

 

[142094]

Hopefully little of the £5bn will be spent on new roads.

 

[Aictos]

If they aren't interested in rebuilding the East West line between Cambridge and Oxford which they ought to do why not electrify the remaining OHLE islands between Ipswich and Birmingham via Bury St Edmunds, Ely, Peterborough, Stamford, Leicester, Nuneaton and Coleshill Parkway?

Means Freightliner could electrically haul freight between Ipswich and the Midlands via Peterborough rather then use the North London Line, it would also allow NXEA or their successor to use EMUs on the Ipswich to Peterborough services allowing the 170s to go elsewhere and finally replace the XC 170s on the Birmingham to Stansted services with EMUs so their 170s can also be used elsewhere.

Meaning with some thought, a rolling stock cascade could go ahead sooner then waiting for the Thameslink cascade to go ahead.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Electrification infill certainly - Ely to Peterborough makes a lot of sense , especially if pushed back to Ipswich via Bury - cascading out more diesels and giving cross country electric freight.

Adding Oxford - Coventry would be equally sensible , but the timescales would make it after GW main line. Reading to Basingstoke 25kV also.

 

[swt_passenger]

If they aren't interested in rebuilding the East West line between Cambridge and Oxford which they ought to do why not electrify the remaining OHLE islands between Ipswich and Birmingham via Bury St Edmunds, Ely, Peterborough, Stamford, Leicester, Nuneaton and Coleshill Parkway?

Means Freightliner could electrically haul freight between Ipswich and the Midlands via Peterborough rather then use the North London Line, it would also allow NXEA or their successor to use EMUs on the Ipswich to Peterborough services allowing the 170s to go elsewhere and finally replace the XC 170s on the Birmingham to Stansted services with EMUs so their 170s can also be used elsewhere.

Meaning with some thought, a rolling stock cascade could go ahead sooner then waiting for the Thameslink cascade to go ahead.

Where would NXEA and XC get all the spare EMUs necessary for this though? I thought all the stock displaced by the 379s was was already allocated to strengthening and timetable changes.

I expect a project like this wouldn't be able to meet the likely requirement for something that can be done quickly to grab some headlines. What we need is stuff that is known to be well up the GRIP system but postponed, that they can quickly restart.

 

[tbtc]

What we need is stuff that is known to be well up the GRIP system but postponed, that they can quickly restart

Agreed.

I'm not even sure whether the cost of the Oxford - Cambridge line would come anywhere near these kind of costs (since no one project would get the full sum anyway).

Other suggested plans would need new trains (e.g. EMUs on electified lines) - thats why I'm suggesting things like the single track chord at Dore (no new trains needed, you could even do it without an additional platform to be cheapskate, but it would have a big improvement on relaibility as well as create plenty scope for future capacity once we have some "proper" money to spend)

 

[cle]

Would rebuilding a second platform loop and having central passing tracks at Dunbar help the East Coast journey times or reliability?

(Ignoring whether it should be paid by UK or Scottish governments.)

 

[exile]

Spending money on trains built abroad will not benefit the UK economy very much.

 

[Aictos]

Where would NXEA and XC get all the spare EMUs necessary for this though? I thought all the stock displaced by the 379s was was already allocated to strengthening and timetable changes.

I expect a project like this wouldn't be able to meet the likely requirement for something that can be done quickly to grab some headlines. What we need is stuff that is known to be well up the GRIP system but postponed, that they can quickly restart.

Order new trains......

 

[swt_passenger]

Order new trains......

Yebbut...

Your idea was that this could save time compared to waiting for the Thameslink cascade - so that means that ordering your new trains would have to be a faster process than the industry appears capable of...

Do the trains themselves count as 'infrastructure' spending in this context anyway?