politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The language of priorities. What we talk about when we talk ab
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The language of priorities. What we talk about when we talk about infrastructure
I don't think you could better (or worsen) the optics for people in the north. Approving a third runway for Heathrow on the day our transport infrastructure grinds to a halt. Up yours, northerners.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"Rail chaos today is partly due to decades of underinvestment. Last year we found that the North of England has been underfunded by £59 BILLION relative to London over the past 10 years #OneNorth"
More accurately, the chaos today is due to investment. If money had not been thrown at Network Rail for new infrastructure, they would not have been able to muck up the delivery so much ...
Edit: and first.
They can be people in power: Osborne drove the Northern Powerhouse forwards, and now he is not there that concept is dying. They can be ordinary souls: the reopening of part of the Waverley Line was initially driven by some 'normal' people. The East-West rail project was likewise a small but well-focused campaign for a difficult project that has already been partially achieved.
Sadly, far too often people who have good ideas for infrastructure projects do not know how to subtly and continually apply pressure, and some are frankly in the batsh*t insane category: they have good ideas but just end up alienating everyone.
And it’s likely not an economic one. The costs are in the region of £30bn and £5bn respectively. The decision on the new transpennine route was a disgrace.
The point of infrastructure projects being judged on return on investment is a strong one, but that is quite clearly not the only metric. The development of poorer regions is quite clearly not a significant metric, either.
A good article, though.
1) Unbelievable costs. Costings are by, and delivery would be by, Network Rail, who have f***ed up the GWML upgrade to a hideous extent. Witness also the cancellation of much of the MML upgrade. When it comes to major enhancements, NR appear unable to get anywhere near realistic costings.
2) HS3. If this goes ahead, then any TPE upgrades would need to be altered to best fit the new infrastructure arrangements.
It should also be noted that Crossrail was partly paid for by a business tax, and Crossrail 2 might be partially paid for by a property tax. Some other infrastructure projects might be more likely to go ahead if they had similar arrangements, but that's not much use when the main aim is regeneration of a poor area ...
If the overall pot is reduced then decisions on where to allocate the spending will have to be more ruthless. As someone with prior experience of commuting in London I was really surprised at how easy it is to find a seat on the Edinburgh-Glasgow trains. I do think that you can make a case that London needs the spending more simply on the basis of need.
Gosh. The national media's remembered there's a north
More seriously, last year there was a graphic (I linked it here at the time) indicating that of bigwig transport decision-makers, 9/10 lived in London/the south-east and I think the other lived in the south too. Even with the best will in the world, that's going to skew decision-making. If you shoved them all in Cumbria they'd probably discover the importance of maintaining rural roads.
Gosh, more Yorkshire whinging.
Connecting Blyth and Cramlington to the Metro network would also do wonders for the often forgotton North East.
More infrastructure for Orkney ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44368813
Commercially and economically it will always make more sense to invest in Crossrail 2 than developing northern rail services. Crossrail 2 will be used by millions of people a year. It will encourage redevelopment along its route. There is plenty of private capital to augment that investment and ensure that there is a return in jobs, housing and marginal constituencies.
This raises an even larger question that Alastair touches upon. Where does growth come from in the 21st century? The simple answer is successful cities. What makes a city successful? That's a bit harder but it seems to require a critical mass of people, education, infrastructure and ambition. London, with more top ranked Universities than the rest of western Europe, has this par excellence.
We absolutely need London to succeed. It is the powerhouse of our growth and essential to our tax base. We cannot stop investing in it. But it already massively distorts our economy. Osborne was right in concept to seek to establish a northern powerhouse but did not or could not find the money to properly back it. The headlines about rail timetables will fade soon enough but the underlying problem remains. At a time when we still have a significant deficit and overwhelming pressure on spending in the NHS, Social Care, benefits, public sector housing etc it is not going to be easy to find.
Argentina boycotting a football match with Israel to great international acclaim on the same day Theresa May is laying out the red carpet for Benjamin Netanyahu in Downing St......
A perfect metafor for the Britain's new position in the world
There is a subtle point buried in my post: if you want better infrastructure, whinging and complaining rarely works. In fact, it can often be counter-productive. If people want better infrastructure, make the case clearly and well.
Fifteen years ago, during my coastwalk, I stopped for a few minutes at Flint castle on the North Wales coast. Whilst there, a man approached me and asked if I was doing the Coastwalk. I replied I was, and he said he'd considered nicking our motorhome in the car park below, but had changed his mind when he'd seen a charity poster in the window!
Roll on fifteen years, and we were walking in the same area. At one in the afternoon, a group of twentysomething men and women were outside a decrepit children's playground, drinking lager and joshing around. It was not a friendly environment to be in. Another local told me that there had been a stabbing and a machete attack recently in the area.
Infrastructure is useful, but perhaps the money can sometimes be better spent more directly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44127068
There’s an issue around rural buses, and the fact that rural, and indeed semi-rual non-drivers, for whatever reason, can be very isolated without them. Even in Essex there are communities with none, or only one a week.
Crossrail and the like do indeed primarily benefit Londoners and commuters, but Heathrow is in a different category. The government will be depending on votes from the SNP and Labour MPs from the North to get it across the line in a vote.
What you are left with is Northumberland and then it becomes a question of do you have enough traffic to justify it after all the Scottish Government haven't prioritised it on their side.
I spent last year flying round Europe Monday to Thursday. Based on my experience and that of others doing the same thing unless you can drive to Heathrow you are better going via Schipol (or at a push Brussels).
Meanwhile KLM and Emirates operate to most of the regional airports and take a considerable amount of long haul passengers (and APD) away.
Alastair's second to last sentence contradicts the italicized section - the trans Pennine upgrades should be put back on.
The largest potential infrastructure projects t near me is Doncaster Sheffield airport which hopefully will be able to expand as per their ambitious plans. It was one of the first ports of call for the regional mayor, Dan Jarvis.
I do loads of walking, and very infrequently feel in any way threatened. Yet walking post those youths I felt a little frisson of danger, as though they could have turned on us at any moment. An odd and disturbing feeling.
At the moment it’s base estimate is coming in at over twice that of CRL1, and there is no bill just optioneering.
That’s going to be very hard to justify before the North gets some serious investment.
Not to excuse the fact, just to say it's long ingrained.
F1: markets are up on Ladbrokes, giving them a cursory glance now.
Any moment now that whinging git Burnham will appear to tell us all how bad things are but it's not his fault
A friend who flies Belfast -> Heathrow -> Copenhagen only arrives at 14:30 (assuming the Belfast Heathrow flight takes off).
Newcastle has a choice of Heathrow, Brussels, CDG and Schipol for transfers. Schipol is great, Brussels acceptable CDG bearable if you give enough time for connections. Heathrow only if there is no other option and even then.... And if it's not the connection that puts you off its the airline itself.
The future world growth is going to be in long haul destinations such as China and India, both of which are better served by pretty much any hub airport in Europe or the Middle East, than through Heathrow.
I don't often read articles which make me realise I've overlooked something important (maybe a reflection on me), but AM's leader explaining the reason that the North gets relatively neglected is one - I see the point and I'm sure it's right.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/06/our-survey-next-tory-leader-rees-mogg-leads-gove-by-less-than-ten-votes-in-over-a-thousand-javid-is-third.html
Also, if everyone using the bus is a pensioner then someone has to pay for the service.
A pure market theory doesn't work very well on infrastructure.
They would then be focused on the need to improve the roads in Scotland away from the Central Belt.
When I lived at Buchan and went home to Colchester occasionally, I became a connoisseur of the road routes north...
Remember the First Minister who chartered a helicopter for the last election campaign as she didn’t want to waste time travelling by road?
Edit: but looking at the map, there would really be no way through at all.
This area of the country is just too densely populated compared with the current intrastructure.
https://mobile.twitter.com/wareisjoe/status/1003984057787699202
If the A68 is inappropriate to upgrade die to terrain then the A7 is hardly a walk in the park. Crossing the watershed through the pass at Mosspaul would be, errrr, interesting to dual.
If the infrastructure project was an add-on to an existing capability then the cost benefit case was relatively straightforward, and the accountants were happy with their spreadsheets.
But if the infrastructure project was a component in building a new strategic capability then it was not so straightforward. The main benefit was often the "option value" it provided in enabling further undefined projects that built on or required that infrastructure. This required the CEO to recognise the strategic value and over-ride the accountants.
However there was a danger. If you could manage to get a project labelled "strategic", then you could avoid difficult quantitative questions and get away with waving your hands around.
Nevertheless there is a crucial difference between add-on and enabling infrastructure projects.
Oh.
However, credit to Mr Meeks - a well written and balanced piece.
Anyhow, how many seats in the Manchester commuter belt are the Tories trying their hardest to lose?
EDIT: But you're right. When the scheme was originally envisaged, the area wasn't as densely populated. If you live in Bagshot you'll know what the roads round our area are like.
However the justification for connectivity in large Northern conurbations is entirely different. It is an economic justification based on enabling capabilities and requires a powerful champion to counter the accountants in the Treasury.