What the railways are for

In all the chaos of the railways at the moment, there are still odd bits of good news.

A report just published by the Urban Transport Group - Rail Cities UK, our vision for their future - highlights the fact that railway use has increased faster in many provincial centres far faster than in London.

It cites cases such as Huddersfield, boosted by a thriving university (which incidentally has some of the best designed university buildings I have ever seen) where growth has been 91% over the past decade, St Helens with 184% and Coventry (another city with lots of students) with 143%.

There are numerous other examples and yet it has been a struggle to obtain funding for schemes to improve railways locally. The report points out that, given the difficulties of building new urban roads, and the fact that people are increasingly turning away from car-based transport, supporting rail based transport, whether light or heavy rail, can be the only option.

There is a series of obstacles that would make it hard for cities to improve their rail networks, such as the failure of the industry to implement its investment programme on time or on budget, the lack of co-ordination at local level between rail and other transport providers, and the appraisal methodology which often fails to take into account many of the wider benefits of schemes.

Consequently, the report argues for greater devolution and integration of local services, pointing to the fact that devolved areas have tended to invest heavily in transport.

It is not a new message but perhaps it has added resonance given Network Rail’s chaotic investment process of the past few years.