Transport Spending Inequality

[ScotGG]

People falling into the north v south trap again (even though much of the south sees crap spend eg the south west).

In addition it's just not the norm for most developed nations to spend only in one area at the expense of another like we tend to do. London NEEDS investment as a major world city that's also one of the premier places to visit on the planet bringing £££ to the economy, but investment IS also sorely needed for many cities in the north (and elsewhere like Bristol and Birmingham). Urban areas in many G7 nations see investment both in capital cities and secondary conurbations or other big cities. See China, Australia, Spain, France etc.

The UK and Treasury have a major aversion to infrastructure spend full stop. London does "better" but hardly amazing on an international level. See how Crossrail took 30 years to be approved and even then most of it funded by London business and TfL borrowing. Not central government. Even then Treasury was loath to spend what is a relatively small sum of £6.5bn over the projects 15 year lifespan. Didn't Paris build many similar routes in 40 years while we talked of it? Still they also improved cities all over the country. Investment in light rail across French cities north, south, east and west has been huge.

In London projects like the Bakerloo have been waiting 90 years with Thamesmead waiting 50 years.

The figures of £10bn per annum spend in London seem odd. What's that based on? The Liz line was £6.5bn over 15 years!

I'd like to see serious investment in the likes of Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle etc but not at the expense of London or Bristol. It should not be either this or that. And infrastructure investment is essential for productivity, economic growth and quality of life. Invest in short term to benefit long term.

The main problem is the dead hand of the Treasury and economic thinking in recent decades. We could learn a lot from other developed nations. Instead I suspect within England the us v them, north v south arguments will go on.

 

[Haywain]

Of course the other scandal consists of all the jobs in London that could just as easily be located somewhere else at lower cost and with higher quality.

Elsewhere - eastern Europe, south Asia?

 

[Magdalia]

Of course the other scandal consists of all the jobs in London that could just as easily be located somewhere else at lower cost and with higher quality.

Like the Department of Health being the focal point of regeneration at Quarry Hill in Leeds and the BBC being the focal point of regeneration at Media City in Salford?

 

[Krokodil]

Why should a journey in the north be subsidized more than in London?

Because delivering services using diesel units on aging infrastructure is expensive. Invest in a proper S-bahn network for many of these cities and you'll see income increase while costs reduce.

Plus I personally consider that HS2 will have a much bigger benefit for passengers living in the North outside of London than for Londers and thus a big share should be included in the 'North's figures.

Will it end up reaching the North then? Unless the government pulls its finger out, the trains ordered will be a reduction in capacity for Manchester because no one is going to build some 400m platforms at Piccadilly to accommodate double sets. Single sets will be quite a bit shorter than the existing 390s.

And how will Leeds be benefitting? That got cut long ago.

Of course the other scandal consists of all the jobs in London that could just as easily be located somewhere else at lower cost and with higher quality.

If only they had decent infrastructure to support them...

 

[43066]

Of course the other scandal consists of all the jobs in London that could just as easily be located somewhere else at lower cost and with higher quality.

London being a leading global financial centre, and with huge reach in terms of tech, the legal profession etc. (many contracts globally are governed by English law).

I’d be interested to know where those sorts of jobs can be relocated for higher quality, or lower cost for the equivalent. Nowhere in the UK, that’s for sure.

People falling into the north v south trap again (even though much of the south sees crap send eg the south west).

in addition it's just not the norm for most nations to spend only in one area at the expense of another like we tend to do. London NEEDS investment as a major world city that's also one of the premier places to visit on the planet bringing £££ but investment also sorely needed for many cities of the north (and elsewhere like Bristol and Birmingham). Urban areas in many G7 nations see benefit both in capital cities and secondary conurbations or other big cities. See China, Australia, Spain, France etc.

The UK and Treasury have a major aversion to infrastructure spend full stop. London does "better" but hardly amazing on an international level. See how Crossrail took 30 years to be approved and even then most of it funded by London business and TfL borrowing. Not central government. Even then Treasury was loath to spend what is a relatively small sum of £6.5bn over the projects 15 year lifespan. Didn't Paris build many similar routes in 40 years we talked of it? Still they improved cities all over the country.

In London projects like the Bakerloo have been waiting 90 years with Thamesmead waiting 50 years.

The figures of £10bn per annum spend in London seem odd. What's that based on? The Liz line was £6.5bn over 15 years!

I'd like to see serious investment in the likes of Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle etc but not at the expense of London or Bristol. It should not be either this or that. And infrastructure investment is essential for productivity, economic growth and quality of life. Invest in short term to benefit long term.

The main problem is the dead hand of the Treasury and economic thinking in recent decades. We could learn a lot from other developed nations. Instead I suspect within England the us v them, north v south arguments will go on.

A very sensible post.

 

[Horizon22]

The issue is that if more does (rightfully) go towards the North, that London & SE will suffer on much needed projects. London has 9 million people within it, and without excellent public transport provision would just fail to function properly. The Elizabeth line already has 800K passengers daily, as an example.

For instance there are reports that there may be no funding for the Bakerloo line stock refurbishment which is getting dangerously close to being completely dilapidated.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It's a bit of an oversimplification - whilst I'm not saying other areas don't deserve funding (they obviously do), London is at the point where most meaningful interventions are megaprojects like crossrail. Other places can have meaningful enhancements without doing that kind of thing or spending that kind of money.

Surely all the more reason for spending the money in the regions?

 

[hwl]

Surely all the more reason for spending the money in the regions?

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

 

[styles]

The issue is that if more does (rightfully) go towards the North, that London & SE will suffer on much needed projects. London has 9 million people within it, and without excellent public transport provision would just fail to function properly. The Elizabeth line already has 800K passengers daily, as an example.

Only if we assume there's a fixed pot of money which is to be divvied across the UK.

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.

 

[Harpo]

For an utterly obvious north/south divide, start with Wales.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

yes they are - it is a tribal.

 

[styles]

yes they are - it is a tribal.

And a lot of people are *not*, which is what I said

 

[DarloRich]

And a lot of people are *not*, which is what I said

I disagree. Taking money from London is exactly what this is about for many. They think that London gets all the money and they should suffer for a bit. It is jealousy, ignorance and suspicion driving those views.

Not all think that, obviously, but many. I do have some experience of this

 

[styles]

I disagree. Taking money from London is exactly what this is about for many. They think that London gets all the money and they should suffer for a bit. It is jealousy, ignorance and suspicion driving those views.

Not all think that, obviously, but many. I do have some experience of this

Yes but you've confused what I said and suggested it's wrong when it's not.

If I said a lot of people like cake, the fact that a lot of people don't like cake doesn't mean not a lot of people like cake.

A lot of people would be quite happy to see investment across the UK.

That there's also a lot of people for whom it is as tribal as you say doesn't negate that.

I would like to think people involved in a discussion about the issue on a dedicated transport forum would fall more into the former camp for what it's worth

 

[thejuggler]

London in particular is an outlier. The expenditure on public transport has been high since before the car was invented. The essential employees needed in London didn't and couldn't afford to live in London.

As a result using public transport is embedded in everyone who lives there and even when cars became mainstream the public transport was so good using a car wasn't the first choice.

Other cities were once similar, trams and buses, but then the private car was seen as what would give us 'freedom' so that was planned for over public transport investment.

 

[DarloRich]

I would like to think people involved in a discussion about the issue on a dedicated transport forum would fall more into the former camp for what it's worth

I don't disagree - however I point, again, to the real world!

 

[Hadders]

London is the goose that lays the golden egg for the UK. WIthout it the whole country would be a lot poorer.

In many cases London isn't competing with other UK cities for jobs, but with the likes of Paris, New York, Berlin, Tokyo etc.

 

[101DMU]

Living in the very north of England Berwick Upon Tweed the levelling up from our government has seen the cancel of A1 duelling lots of money spent so wasted. Now I cannot specifically blame them but the fixation with speeding up KX to Edinburgh means less frequent services for Berwick.

Not only for Berwick but several other ECML stations, including Durham.

 

[Krokodil]

London is the goose that lays the golden egg for the UK. WIthout it the whole country would be a lot poorer.

In many cases London isn't competing with other UK cities for jobs, but with the likes of Paris, New York, Berlin, Tokyo etc.

But if you keep piling investment into London at the expense of the rest of the country you'll end up with a hyper-charged South East (with hyper-charged housing costs to match) forced to subsidise high unemployment in the rest of the country. Whereas if you spread infrastructure investment around a bit, regional cities will become attractive places for inward investment.

Didn't HSBC announce an office in Birmingham on the back of HS2?

 

[generalnerd]

The big issue in my opinion is that London does have much higher density, warranting more money spent on projects there. However, many northern cities are quite neglected, with Leeds only just getting the money for its tram system it should have gotten years ago.

Manchester should have had a metro system like Newcastle and many more northern cities should get something at least.

I think it comes down to Londons ever growing popularity and a growing trend of ‘if you want *insert project that should have been built years ago* you should move to London. (Often known as NIMBYism) It was seen with the building of the Sheffield supertram.

And that’s another problem. 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. They don’t have that issue in London, as they have had transport for many years, but northern cities do push back against these projects.

If the project is unpopular, that means the government putting in the project will become unpopular, which could lead to them loosing seats. The best option that they find is to keep on kicking the can up the road until they find a drain, even though there’s multiple bins right near them.

 

[Haywain]

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.

Is that really true? Is the Ashington line a failure? Was the Borders railway a failure in its first year?

 

[sh24]

London is the goose that lays the golden egg for the UK. WIthout it the whole country would be a lot poorer.

In many cases London isn't competing with other UK cities for jobs, but with the likes of Paris, New York, Berlin, Tokyo etc.

So very true. London competes globally so needs the infrastructure to suit.

That said investing to allow the North to, at least, breakeven, rather than be subsidised by London + South East is a worthwhile endeavour. Maybe HS2 should have been Liverpool-Newcastle via Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and York?

 

[Zomboid]

Is that really true? Is the Ashington line a failure? Was the Borders railway a failure in its first year?

Neither of those involved digging up the roads. 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.

 

[sh24]

Didn't HSBC announce an office in Birmingham on the back of HS2?

They already have a big back office function there (thanks to the Midland Bank acquisition). Not sure how much more they are moving up.

 

[Hadders]

idn't HSBC announce an office in Birmingham on the back of HS2?

They dd. The UK headquarters.

The global HQ remains in London.

I'm not saying the north shouldn't get investment, far from it. What I am saying is that you cannot stop investing in London to pay for it.

 

[Haywain]

Neither of those involved digging up the roads.

The comment I replied to didn't mention specific types of project.

 

[styles]

I'm not saying the north shouldn't get investment, far from it. What I am saying is that you cannot stop investing in London to pay for it.

You don't have to.

 

[Harpo]

I'm not saying the north shouldn't get investment, far from it. What I am saying is that you cannot stop investing in London to pay for it.

The challenges of binary either/or thinking and the naivety we see here of offering sacrificial lambs and expecting a recycling of the funding, as per Sunak’s undelivered list of goodies when he cancelled HS2 from inside a former railway terminus. Anyone seen North Wales OLE or pothole-free roads?

 

[amahy]

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!

 

[JKF]

That said investing to allow the North to, at least, breakeven, rather than be subsidised by London + South East is a worthwhile endeavour. Maybe HS2 should have been Liverpool-Newcastle via Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and York?

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.