Union connectivity review

[LNW-GW Joint]

Grant Shapps has sent Peter Hendy to review "union connectivity" and to recommend where to spend a lot of infrastructure money.

Union connectivity review: terms of reference

www.gov.uk

I though at first this was about connecting the rail unions, but apparently not.

The government asks Sir Peter to undertake a detailed review of how the quality and availability of transport infrastructure across the UK can support economic growth and quality of life across the whole of the UK.
As part of this review, Sir Peter should consider:

• the quality and reliability of major connections across the UK
• likely current and future demand for transport links
• the environmental impact of policy options (including with regard to climate change)
• existing work completed by the government on cross-UK connectivity

The review should consider the work across modes to restart and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Aviation Recovery Plan.
Sir Peter should make recommendations as to whether and how best to improve transport connectivity across the UK in the long term, including how to bolster existing connections. This work should cover transport connectivity between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland via road, rail and air, and across the Irish Sea.
Any recommendations made by Sir Peter should be consistent with the UK’s wider fiscal strategy and underpinned by detailed, published economic analysis. Sir Peter should ensure that any recommendations he makes have significant benefits to either economic growth or quality of life in the UK.

He's got 3 months to produce an interim report.
A "North Channel Tunnel" might be just the thing to keep the nationalists at bay.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The problem is - we have so many reviews/documents/papers etc that go nowhere, so I don't know about anyone else but I am a little punchdrunk by them all and am waiting for action and no more talk.

I theory this is an important document in practice I might as well watch an episode of Yes Minister

 

[najaB]

A "North Channel Tunnel" might be just the thing to keep the nationalists at bay.

Conversely, it makes it even more attractive for an independent Scotland to rejoin the EU along with a reunified Ireland.

 

[geoffk]

We all know this project is more about politics than transport. It’s a way of trying to address the disunited nature of the UK, the growing support for independence north of the border and concern that difficulties over trade with Northern Ireland could lead to a “border poll” on unification.

Having said that, some transport suggestions will be put forward, some more realistic than others. I expect the southward extension of the Waverley Route from Tweedbank to Carlisle will be one, along with the various ideas for a bridge across/tunnel under the North Channel. The tunnel option would have to consider the Beaufort's Dyke sea trench which is approximately 300m deep and was used for dumping munitions after WW2. This would require an expensive and potentially hazardous clean-up operation. Should this be a rail-only option, or road and rail? How do we resolve the UK/Irish gauge issue?

More down-to-earth ideas would be electrification of Bidston - Wrexham and its incorporation into Merseyrail, with through trains to Liverpool, and Cardiff - Swansea. Also rail freight projects to be examined might be cross-country routes that connect major ports like Felixstowe, Teesport and the Humber ports with inland and urban distribution centres like Mossend and Port Salford, also routes to Ireland through the ports of Fishguard and Holyhead. It's over 20 years since rail played a part in the freight scene in Northern Ireland, when cross-border traffic was common, but longer still for internal NI rail freight.

The review isn't just about rail and ports. We might get proposals for new roads but it's difficult to see where. Cross-border bus services don't require infrastructure spending, if that's what the review is mainly about and I don't know enough about the border areas to suggest what might be needed. Many cross-County boundary bus services in England have disappeared.

 

[DarloRich]

Misdirection. Designed to deflect from the covid mess, the coming brexit mess and the fact that Johnson has no plan or desire to "level up".

This buys poisitve column inches in the provinces, kicks the problem down the road, allows for supportive noises but mean nothing need be done ahead of the next election.

People will lap it up.

 

[geoffk]

Misdirection. Designed to deflect from the covid mess, the coming brexit mess and the fact that Johnson has no plan or desire to "level up".

This buys poisitve column inches in the provinces, kicks the problem down the road, allows for supportive noises but mean nothing need be done ahead of the next election.

People will lap it up.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. Users groups and other transport bodies are being asked for their comments though and I expect they will cobble something together!

 

[306024]

The problem is - we have so many reviews/documents/papers etc that go nowhere, so I don't know about anyone else but I am a little punchdrunk by them all and am waiting for action and no more talk.

I theory this is an important document in practice I might as well watch an episode of Yes Minister

The one where Hacker became ’Transport Supremo’ charged with bringing in a coordinated transport policy would be appropriate.

 

[HSTEd]

Nothing will happen, its much much too late for this to make any difference.

Scotland will be gone before anything can have an impact, even if construction started immediately, without the decades of political wrangling and desperate attempts to optimise £1 out of the budget through spending £2 on consultants.

As for an Irish Sea crossing, it really must be a drive through crossing to be worth building, and I am increasingly skeptical that a route through Scotland is desirable - the Scottish Government will no doubt go out of its way to impede the construction of such a crossing, or supporting roads, and it will require substantial infrastructure construction under their purview.

Given examples in China and abroad, I am coming round to a view that a very long bridge from Anglesey to the vicinity of Ardglass is a reasonable option.
The water is reasonably shallow and it requires less infrastructure construction on the GB end to reach useful transport links.

There are also smaller projects one could propose, like putting an immersed tube under the Dee and extending Merseyrail to Prestatyn or other North Wales towns.

 

[Gloster]

The one where Hacker became ’Transport Supremo’ charged with bringing in a coordinated transport policy would be appropriate.

According to Sir Humphrey the job was known in the Civil Service as ‘Transport Muggins’.

 

[Chester1]

Nothing will happen, its much much too late for this to make any difference.

Scotland will be gone before anything can have an impact, even if construction started immediately, without the decades of political wrangling and desperate attempts to optimise £1 out of the budget through spending £2 on consultants.

As for an Irish Sea crossing, it really must be a drive through crossing to be worth building, and I am increasingly skeptical that a route through Scotland is desirable - the Scottish Government will no doubt go out of its way to impede the construction of such a crossing, or supporting roads, and it will require substantial infrastructure construction under their purview.

Given examples in China and abroad, I am coming round to a view that a very long bridge from Anglesey to the vicinity of Ardglass is a reasonable option.
The water is reasonably shallow and it requires less infrastructure construction on the GB end to reach useful transport links.

There are also smaller projects one could propose, like putting an immersed tube under the Dee and extending Merseyrail to Prestatyn or other North Wales towns.

An Irish Sea bridge on any route won't work because it would be closed too often. The most viable fixed link (still a terrible BCR) would be a Larne to Stranraer rail tunnel with a new line to the WCML with a triangular junction. It would be a very similar project to the Channel Tunnel but much deeper (400m) to get under Beaufort Dyke. As you have stated its not likely even if the UK government was prepared to fund it because of Scottish nationalism. The Scottish government would need to take agree liability in event of independence and they won't do that.

A Dee link would be a massive project that would never pay for itself. The population on the Welsh side is a small fraction of the necessary market required to justify it. It took decades to get a commitment to introduce direct services to Liverpool and that only required £10m of infrastructure spending! I am more optimistic about intergrating Bidston to Wrexham into Merseyrail. The introduction of the 230s and a half hourly service should be a game changer for the line and make a battery extension of Merseyrail services financially viable.

 

[HSTEd]

An Irish Sea bridge on any route won't work because it would be closed too often.

Not necessarily
The Irish sea might not be a fishpond, but it's weather is not substantially worse than other exemplar bridges.

Also note the relative shallowness of the water on a southern route may allow shorter, more robust spans.

The most viable fixed link (still a terrible BCR) would be a Larne to Stranraer rail tunnel with a new line to the WCML with a triangular junction. It would be a very similar project to the Channel Tunnel but much deeper (400m) to get under Beaufort Dyke.

Such a project would be a huge white elephant because noone would use it.
And thats assuming you can even dig a tunnel with such a huge vertical drop.

A railway tunnel, especially via Stranraer, is almost useless.
As the financial disaster that is the Chunnel proves.

You spend a substantial fraction of the money for a tiny fraction of the utility.
130km of new railway and a 35-40km of tunnel, plus facilities at the Northern Ireland side.

A Dee link would be a massive project that would never pay for itself. The population on the Welsh side is a small fraction of the necessary market required to justify it.

Myself I am not so sure.
In engineering terms its a relatively cheap tunnel, given the ability to buidl the vast majority as an immersed tube design in relatively shallow water.

Prestatyn, Rhyll et al would turn into the most fashionable part of Liverpool in short order.
There is mass potential demand there I think.

(EDIT: Population of the coastal belt of Abergele eastwards is estimated at 75000 by NASA SEDAC, it ain't small)

Also this is about union connectivity, it is not about building projects that strictly have large BCRs in of themselves, because the economic damage to the people of Wales and England from the collapse of that union too will be dramatically greater than the cost of the projects necessary to render it an impossibility.

If it prevents Welsh independence happening, almost any set of projects is financially justified.

 

[najaB]

As the financial disaster that is the Chunnel proves.

AFAIK, Eurotunnel is profitable in normal years.

 

[HSTEd]

AFAIK, Eurotunnel is profitable in normal years.

After becoming insolvent and escaping its debts?

The clock was functionally reset on that when it went into bankruptcy protection.

 

[Chester1]

Not necessarily
The Irish sea might not be a fishpond, but it's weather is not substantially worse than other exemplar bridges.

Also note the relative shallowness of the water on a southern route may allow shorter, more robust spans.



Such a project would be a huge white elephant because noone would use it.
And thats assuming you can even dig a tunnel with such a huge vertical drop.

A railway tunnel is almost useless.
As the financial disaster that is the Chunnel proves.



Myself I am not so sure.
In engineering terms its a relatively cheap tunnel, given the ability to buidl the vast majority as an immersed tube design in relatively shallow water.

Prestatyn, Rhyll et al would turn into the most fashionable part of Liverpool in short order.
There is mass suppressed demand there I think.

Also this is about union connectivity, it is not about building projects that strictly have large BCRs in of themselves, because the economic damage to the people of Wales and England from the collapse of that union too will be dramatically greater than the cost of the projects necessary to render it an impossibility.

If it prevents Welsh independence happening, almost any set of projects is financially justified.

Prestatyn and Rhyl are relatively small towns. A metro service would cart fresh air unless you are proposing building thousands of houses to settle Scousers in North Wales. I doubt that would strengthen the union!

There is no realistic prospect of Welsh independence for a generation. Its not like Scotland which could function independent of England or Northern Ireland which would join a prosperous neighbour. Wales has multiple economic regions that are plugged into their English neighbours rather than each other. Its primary north south transport links go through England and would be ruined by customs posts (inevitable price of Wales rejoining the EU). Nearly a fifth of the population of Wales is English by birth. Its simply not going to happen unless Wales is substantially reconfigured first.

My 2 cents on the union is that Northern Ireland is a liability, Scotland is leaving within a generation and Wales can't leave for at least a generation. England is 86% of the UK population and will be fine on its own (or with Wales).

 

[HSTEd]

Prestatyn and Rhyl are relatively small towns. A metro service would cart fresh air unless you are proposing building thousands of houses to settle Scousers in North Wales. I doubt that would strengthen the union!

Why, are you proposing that Scousers would not be permitted to vote?

There is no realistic prospect of Welsh independence for a generation.

So your proposal is to do nothing for at least a generation and then be surprised when independence happens?

 

[najaB]

After becoming insolvent and escaping its debts?

Yes. The point is that it's functionally profitable, the problem was that they raised money in an expensive way.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes. The point is that it's functionally profitable, the problem was that they raised money in an expensive way.

Its functionally profitable if it does not have to pay off a pile of its construction costs.

Not really a succesful exemplar is it?

EDIT:

Fundamentally the benefits of a rail only solution like Chunnel are not going to make up for the cost once you consider the huge construction costs of the 120km long HSL on the Scottish side etc.

If capital is expensive then it will get buried in huge interest charges, whereas if capital is cheap, the extra cost ofa more expensive drive through solution will unlock dramatically greater benefits.

 

[Chester1]

Why, are you proposing that Scousers would not be permitted to vote?


So your proposal is to do nothing for at least a generation and then be surprised when independence happens?

Settling Scousers in Wales would lose more votes for the union that it gained.

No, my proposal is spend money wisely in all 4 parts of the UK. If Wales looked like it might go independent then maybe launch a project that was a waste of money but good unionist politics. Certainly not any time soon.

For Wales to work as independent country it would need its north south transport links to go down its western side, not through England. It would need substantially less migration between England and Wales. Currently the trend is young Welsh people leaving and retired English arriving. Finally it would need its politics to become less not more aligned with England. Its left leaning compared with England but the gap is less now than in 2010.

 

[najaB]

Its functionally profitable if it does not have to pay off a pile of its construction costs.

Not really a succesful exemplar is it?

Had they been more realistic about the traffic levels then they wouldn't have got into the situation where they couldn't repay the costs as quickly as they had promised to. Had they raised a larger proportion of their funding from pension funds the cash crunch wouldn't have happened.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

An Irish Sea bridge on any route won't work because it would be closed too often. The most viable fixed link (still a terrible BCR) would be a Larne to Stranraer rail tunnel with a new line to the WCML with a triangular junction. It would be a very similar project to the Channel Tunnel but much deeper (400m) to get under Beaufort Dyke. As you have stated its not likely even if the UK government was prepared to fund it because of Scottish nationalism. The Scottish government would need to take agree liability in event of independence and they won't do that.

Is there anyone on this website with full technical knowledge of any north-south geological fault lines in the area where the tunnel would be taking a west-east route where the possibility of movement deformation could pose a severe problem to the viability of the said tunnel?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The North Channel Tunnel idea would be more palatable if it was presented as a direct connection to HS2. I completely understand Scots' fustration with HS2 not continuing beyond Lancashire-even if the buiness case isn't there to do so, it's goes down to psychology and the illusion that Scotland is being left out on purpose.

Yes this is about politics moreso than transport. I think that, to keep the UK together, best focus on loosening Whitehall's grip on power and turn the UK into a true union-not a unitary state.

 

[najaB]

It seems the GB - Ireland fixed link is an idea that isn't going away...

Union Connectivity Review | HS2 extensions and Irish Sea tunnels dominate proposals | New Civil Engineer

In the past month, various groups have put forward ideas for key transport links to inform the review, which is being led by Network Rail chair Sir Peter

www.newcivilengineer.com

 

[EssexGonzo]

Yup. Absolutely no doubt. “Look what we’re doing to try and keep the Union together”.

Wonder why they think the UK “union” is a good idea but not the EUnion? Yet more evidence that the great British public has been “had”.

 

[JonathanP]

Well, one is partly under the control of Westminster, the other partly controlled Westminster. It doesn't seem unreasonable from their point of view, especially bearing mind that Westminster exceptionalism was a key, if unspoken theme of the Brexit debate.