Leaders hit out at regional rail divide
Link new schemes to growth
Civic and business leaders say the Government’s “narrow focus on short-term financial criteria” is contributing to the disparities in funding for rail infrastructure between the North and South.
They said a lack of statutory powers for the North’s strategic transport body was partly to blame for the regional divide.
CIVIC AND business leaders say the Government’s “narrow focus on short-term financial criteria” is contributing to the disparities in funding for rail infrastructure between the North and South.
The Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities (SIGOMA), which represents 46 councils, and rail infrastructure firm Balfour Beatty have submitted evidence to the Transport Select Committee’s rail infrastructure inquiry.
Their submissions, whose contents have been revealed to The
Yorkshire Post, include claims that a lack of statutory powers for the North’s strategic transport body was partly to blame for the regional divide.
The claims come on the day North Yorkshire County Council announced it would be pushing ahead with its plans to double the number of passenger trains between Harrogate and York to two an hour by 2020, a project that will cost £12.5m
Critics say the gulf in transport spending between the North and London is damaging the country’s overall productivity and undermining the Government’s apparent commitment to the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ project.
Last month, the Government’s own figures showed that capital investment by the Department of Transport on Yorkshire as a percentage of London’s total shrunk between 2012/13 and 2016/17, despite both seeing more investment over this period.
The Transport Select Committee last month announced the inquiry “looking at whether the current system of planning and delivering investment in rail infrastructure is adequate”.
In its submission, SIGOMA argued that the Treasury’s tendency to prioritise short-term over long-term benefits “may be undermining their aim of tackling the underlying structural issues holding back the nation’s productivity”.
The statement added: “Economic re-balancing cannot take place as long as [they] continue to prioritise the ‘highest value-for-money’ projects.
“Government should therefore attach a much greater weighting to transport investment’s potential to generate economic growth.”
Both the group and Balfour Beatty also claimed the status of the new strategic body Transport for the North (TfN), which will not be able to borrow money or fund investment, was another problem.
Earlier this week, the House of Lords approved regulations which would allow TfN to become a statutory body, the first of its kind in the country, on April 1. The move will be debated by MPs next month.
Sir Stephen Houghton, leader of Barnsley Council and chair of SIGOMA, said: “Good transport links are essential to spreading the benefits of higher productivity and stronger economic growth across the whole country, in line with the stated objectives of the Government’s Industrial Strategy.
“But a failure to address an allocation basis that favours the most productive parts of the country, and a framework that doesn’t devolve to other sub-national transport bodies powers and funding equivalent to those enjoyed by Transport for London, will prevent their fulfilment.
“The fact that local government and industry have independently settled on the same issues, identifying that the same obstacles are currently holding the country back, should speak volumes.”
The Government denies there is a North-South gap on transport spending, citing its plans to replace or refurbish all trains on the Northern franchise.
Local leaders and industry independently settled on the same issues. Sir Stephen Houghton, leader of Barnsley Council.
THIS NEWSPAPER makes no apology for highlighting the North-South disparity in transport investment – only now is there regional and national focus on an issue that was first highlighted a decade ago. It would also be churlish not to acknowledge the needs of London and the South-East – the capital city, like it or not, is the engine room of the economy and will continue to be so.
Yet one reason why London has become too dominant for the country’s long-term good is fundamental flaws in the allocation of transport funds highlighted by a national committee headed by Barnsley Council leader Sir Steve Houghton.
By using narrow financial criteria such as population density and wages, the South-East is always going to win over the North and successive governments have been too slow to recognise the resulting imbalance. Greater emphasis needs to be given to ‘socio-economic’ factors – and how investment in new road and rail links could turbo-charge the Northern Powerhouse, and those cities and communities, where better infrastructure will open up priceless new investment opportunities.
The challenge is achieving this when the newly-formed Transport for the North has such limited powers in comparison to its London equivalent, a failing pointed out very forcibly by Sir Steve, and when this region has a poor track record when it comes to delivery.
Take the controversial trolleybus scheme in Leeds – it had to be scrapped, at great expense, because it was never going to enhance the social mobility of the low-waged when this was its primary objective. Though just one example, the point is the same – the onus is on leaders here to acquire the necessary expertise, and fast, so they can submit schemes that are so compelling, and offer so much value, that even Transport Secretary Chris Grayling can’t snub Yorkshire and the North as he accelerates a second Crossrail route in London.