Road, Rail & Access

[TheLocalYokel]

Typo Alert - I presume you meant to say: it isn't just the North??? Good post, anyway. Tory MP's in marginals across regional England must despair at Grayling's bungling.

Indeed, a typo. Many thanks.

 

[nick hall]

https://waronthemotorist.wordpress....ation-and-hs2-you-need-some-better-hot-takes/

Not directly linked to Manchester Airport, but it is about electrification in general.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

Yes, that is an excellent piece. Use of colourful language may upset some sensitive readers, but definitely worth one's time if not easily offended by such things.

 

[nick hall]

Yes, that is an excellent piece. Use of colourful language may upset some sensitive readers, but definitely worth one's time if not easily offended by such things.

Thanks EGCC, I should have mentioned the writers vocabulary.

 

[Jerry]

https://waronthemotorist.wordpress....ation-and-hs2-you-need-some-better-hot-takes/

Not directly linked to Manchester Airport, but it is about electrification in general.

Excellent article!

 

[Aceshigh]

Bolton MP who in diplomatic language was "scathing" is worried

900 majority !

Toast thanks to Grayling!

He appears to be trying to bring the Government down single handedly!

The PM is unavailable for comment re holiday but will no doubt be apoplectic with Grayling re handling !

Ps ....Do we know who / where the Northern Powerhouse minister is ?

 

[Coathanger16]

Nobody is arguing that London and the SE should be excluded from state-funding; simply that other regions should be far more included.

And herein lies the issue. There is a finite pot that can be spent on infrastructure - giving more to the regions would mean taking some away from London & the SE. In the current political system, that's a monumental (if not impossible) decision to force government to make. The alternative is to increase the size of the pot and use the "new" money exclusively for the regions. This would likely have to come from either an increase in tax, or asking businesses to contribute to infrastructure spending.

I appreciate the problem you present with regards to T3 at Manchester. The issue would be that if Manchester secured some public funding for that relocation of the utilities hub, other airports would cry foul and demand government allocates them funding as well - even if they didn't actually need it. Personally, I'd feel a bit hard done by if MAN got public funding for their expansion and BHX didn't. Why should MAN get help to expand, but BHX shouldn't. And that's the problem. Government would have so provide funds across the country and there simply isn't enough money to do that.

If public funds were allocated to relocate the utilities hub (not MAG's fault it is there) and to help MAN construct alternative premium parking releasing the extended T3 footprint, then it would become viable for MAG to build the T3 extension.

I accept external funds from either government or other businesses would be acceptable to pay to relocate the utilities hub, but the location of premium parking is entirely down to the airport, and hence they should pay to relocate it.

I don't have any idea of the size of the funds that would be required to expand T3, but roughly how much of the total (including relocation of the utilities hub) could MAG contribute and still get a return? Would it be viable for the rest to be provided by businesses that would benefit from it - i.e. the LCC that would expand operations from T3, businesses in the area that would benefit from having more flights, etc.

The ultimate problem here is that there simply isn't enough funding available for government to fund all these infrastructure projects, and so the government has opted to fund those projects they deem to have the greatest benefit to the country.

In a system where the government is strapped for cash, and private businesses are making quite often incredibly large profits, it makes sense (to me at least) for there to be more involvement of the private sector in funding infrastructure. Perhaps a solution would be that regions could introduce an infrastructure tax, and the funds pooled. Different projects could then bid for some of those funds to help finance their project.

It all comes down to either directing money away from London, or raising more money through higher tax or more business contribution. I think I know which will be easier to deliver.

 

[Aceshigh]

And yes agreed .

Could the Mods move all the pros and cons over to a "rail" must confess I too missed this.

 

[Land23R]

There is a finite pot that can be spent on infrastructure - giving more to the regions would mean taking some away from London & the SE. In the current political system, that's a monumental (if not impossible) decision to force government to make.

.

There are 2 points you make there with which I don't altogether agree.

Firstly, depending on the politics of it, the pot for capital infrastructure spending is not automatically 'fixed'. Government does have a choice as to how much to allocate for this purpose but of course it's not infinite either.

On your second point, I would simply ask why there couldn't be a modicum of redistribution from London and the SE to other regions? I wasn't aware that the current heavily distorted ratios were written in tablets of stone.

 

[Aceshigh]

Had The North actually had some "project money" I could understand a cut but given it has never had any money for special projects I'm somewhat lost as to what we are actually sacrificing?

Meanwhile......

Shall wll we start with the Channel Tunnel which I'm sure if memory serves was going to end up "up north", when support was nerd2ed in Parliament, lo and behold a link North was then scrubbed.

Thameslink, billions in new rolling stock.
Cast offs headed North!

DLR started as one line morphed into massive expansion.

Bank Underground. Massive revamp.

Waterloo. Massive revamp

Last moth the Thames Gateway was announced. No scrutiny or audit, signed off with a flourish.

Heathrow is out with the begging bowl.

Crossrail 2 likewise

There is even talk of a crossrail 3 connecting Brighton !

Money spent comitted or potentially promised £89billion.

And what of the money which suddenly appeared for the DUP.

It's bad enough not getting any money but even erse when a pittence is promised and THEN taken away.

 

[Aceshigh]

Had The North actually had some "project money" I could understand a cut but given it has never had any money for special projects I'm somewhat lost as to what we are actually sacrificing?

Meanwhile......

Shall wll we start with the Channel Tunnel which I'm sure if memory serves was going to end up "up north", when support was needed in Parliament, lo and behold that link North was then scrubbed.

Thameslink, billions invested in new rolling stock. The Cast offs, well those clapped out pacers headed North!

DLR started as one line morphed into massive expansion.

Bank Underground. Massive revamp.

Waterloo. Massive revamp

Last moth the Thames Gateway was announced. Seemingly no requiremnt for scrutiny or audit here. Simply signed off with a flourish by Whitehall!

Heathrow, apparently making billions for the country (despite being owned by foriegn interests ). They are now out with the begging bowl.

Crossrail 2 likewise

Whisper it, but there is even talk of a crossrail 3 connecting Brighton !

Money spent comitted or potentially promised £89billion.

And what of the money which suddenly appeared for the DUP.

It's bad enough not getting any money but even worse when a pittence you are promised and THEN snatched away.

All we want is proportional investment.
This is looking like a Government for London rather than the UK ! It makes May's weasel words about fairness somewhat shallow!

Sorry we are being totally mugged off !

 

[Coathanger16]

Firstly, depending on the politics of it, the pot for capital infrastructure spending is not automatically 'fixed'. Government does have a choice as to how much to allocate for this purpose but of course it's not infinite either.

Whilst yes the government can change how much they spend on infrastructure each year, to increase the spending, cuts would have to be made elsewhere (or tax increased). Compared to welfare, education, health, etc, transport doesn't appear very high on the agenda.

On your second point, I would simply ask why there couldn't be a modicum of redistribution from London and the SE to other regions? I wasn't aware that the current heavily distorted ratios were written in tablets of stone.

There is nothing technically stopping this from happening. The issue is successive politicians and governments have a fixation on London. Any "new" funds therefore first go to London, and politicians would be very much against redistributing funds away from London. I'm NOT saying they are right having that view, just saying thats what the current case is.

Acehigh, whilst yes there should be more spending in the regions, you make it out like London is getting investment after investment whilst the regions get absolutley nothing. That is hardly true as they do, but just on a smaller scale than London & the SE.

Having used public transport in both London & Birmingham (don't know what Manchester is like first hand but I imagine not to disimilar to Birmingham) during rush hour, Birmingham's problems could be fixed by adding a couple of carriages to each train, whilst entirely new lines would just help to serve new places. In London, extending trains would help, but to solve the problem, new lines are needed. How many times have we seen a train come into a station in London or the tube and leave with the platform still being full? A regular occurance. The same in Birmingham or Manchester? Personally - only when something goes wrong. Sure it's busy, but never THAT busy.

Bear in mind that part of the bias in spending (London/SE vs everywhere else) is due to the size of London's network. A bigger network will require more money to maintain and expand (i.e. increasing capacity by 10% in London will cost more than increasing capacity by 10% in Manchester). Also, land in London & the SE is more expensive than land in the North, so that will also play a part.

I'm not saying that explains all the disparity, and I'm not saying more money doesn't need to be spent in the regions (not just the North!), but that is part of the issue.

Personally the rail services around me are actually pretty decent. The trains run on time, you can always get on even if there aren't any seats & the trains are clean. I appreciate thats not the case everywhere, but maybe my views skewed.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

There is a finite pot that can be spent on infrastructure - giving more to the regions would mean taking some away from London & the SE.

But that finite pot belongs to all of us, not just to London and the SE. There is no justification for L&SE retaining the vast majority of these funds and throwing token scraps to the rest. They represent approximately 32% of the population of England. And the wealthiest at that. No need to raise taxes for regional projects if they keep their fair share and the rest of us finally get ours.

The issue would be that if Manchester secured some public funding for that relocation of the utilities hub, other airports would cry foul and demand government allocates them funding as well - even if they didn't actually need it. Personally, I'd feel a bit hard done by if MAN got public funding for their expansion and BHX didn't. Why should MAN get help to expand, but BHX shouldn't.

Curious argument. If BHX has a valid application to make they should submit it. I have no problem with the West Midlands getting its due share for projects which meet the criteria of public benefit. Likewise other operators of strategic public transport infrastructure in the English regions.

but the location of premium parking is entirely down to the airport, and hence they should pay to relocate it.

I can't agree with this. MAG - as a profit-driven private enterprise - is best served by doing nothing and raking in those car-parking profits. It is the Northern economy (not MAG's bottom line) which stands to benefit from T3 expansion. So the corporate interests of MAG and the best interests of the regional economy are not financially aligned in this case. This is where state funding has a role to play in offsetting MAG's commercial loss so that the greater good can be served on behalf of the public. State funds do not exist to boost the profits of private businesses, but conversely, private businesses are not morally bound to sacrifice their own profits for the public good either. They aren't charities.

It all comes down to either directing money away from London, or raising more money through higher tax or more business contribution. I think I know which will be easier to deliver.

You mean extracting a portion from the £2595.68 per head per annum public transport expenditure from London and redistributing that to supplement the £184.96 spent per head in the West Midlands, the £99.19 spent in the North West and the extraordinary £5.01 spent in the North East? Wow, more than a fiver each!!! Curiously, I have no moral objection to that. Especially since London has been eating our share of the cake for 50 years already. They're due a rest to let their - err, our - lunch settle. No need for higher taxes at all. Just equitable distribution of existing national infrastructure funding.

 

[Dobbo]

Apologies if he wrong place, don't know where the road, rail & surface access thread has gone.

George Osbourne renews the call for HS3, which would run through Manchester Airport HS2 station connecting Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle, slashing journey times to the airport.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/674d9082-867d-11e7-8bb1-5ba57d47eff7

 

[Aceshigh]

Just for info, here is the rail thread with George sticking it to Ayling Grayling.

Absolute torrent of criticism re lack of investment from BBC, Sky News to FT, Yorkshire Post and social media.

The MEN is somewhat suprisingly running about 6 hours behind. Given that Manchester is at the geographical crossroads of the Northern rail network, that is a bit odd, but rest assured having quizzed one of their reporters they will be pulling into the station albeit a bit late.

 

[Aceshigh]

Region's businesses back major campaign for Crossrail for the North

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ign-13511148#ICID=Android_MENNewsApp_AppShare see business

 

[Aceshigh]

Don't hold your breath on rail improvements to connect to T2 unless it's all funded locally or moved to Middlesex.

Ayling has apparently indicated "it's not the job of the central government to fund transport solutions in The North.

"we know"

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...-transport-secretary-chris-grayling-1-8716413

He is completely and utterly incompetent. At least his comments have really hit a nerve with various agencies up North who were somewhat "open mouthed" at his latest utterance.

Even May is distancing herself from such imbecilec comments, although he seems to be on a one man mission to totally destroy her in The North. Maybe that's the plan. All very odd.

Labour are no better Steve Rotheram should really be getting four square behind the campaign not pick a fight with GO, one of the few allies The North has that still has influence.

 

[Coathanger16]

Ayling has apparently indicated "it's not the job of the central government to fund transport solutions in The North.

Last paragraph...

“It is central government’s responsibility to provide funding and a delivery structure that ensures efficiency, value for money and accountability. But beyond this, I want the North to take control.”

Maybe I'm being naive here, but I only see one problem - is Grayling serious about giving the 'North' money for infrastructure?

For years the North has been crying out for investment, but when the Secretary of State for Transport finally agrees to give them more funding but explains how he expects the 'North' to design and manage new infrastructure, there's uproar that he's 'shirking' responsibility.

From the feedback I've seen from these latest comments by leaders in the North, it would appear as though they want central government to design, build and run any new infrastructure, and point out that what Grayling has said to the North, he would never say to the SE. May I remind them that it was Transport for London who worked on delivering Crossrail and not central government - all they provided was part of the funds.

Out of interest, how much would it cost to extend the rail link to terminal 2? Equally, if HS3 (or whatever it ends up being called) is built, how to posters envisage this fitting into Manchester Airport? Would the airport be served by a spur from the line, or would a new line run through the airport?

 

[Dobbo]

Good series of points.

I have seen conflicting quotes attributed to Chris Grayling today, so don't quite know what to make of it. However, there is a clear argument that consistent application of the existing BCR type formula will lead to the projects with the best return being selected on a repeated basis. For the past 40 odd years, that has entrenched London's position and led to the ridiculous disparity in spending between London and the rest (including the south east).

In this instance, there has to be a realisation that the cart should be put before the horse. By this I mean that central government needs to provide the overdue support (i.e. stump up the rump of capital cost) to the regions (of which "the North" is but one part) in order to try and close the gap between London and the rest. The area including Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle (I also think Birmingham) is a great template for this.

Hopefully, this is starting to happen.

As regards Manchester Airport and its interface with these, I expect this will come via the HS2 station. I think NPR will use the HS2 Manchester Tunnel through to Piccadilly and a new low level station before continuing out of Manchester in another tunnel towards Leeds.

I'd like to think the airport would invest in a rapid link between this station and the new terminal 2, and eventually a new terminal 1/3. Depending on how BHX seek to make use of Birmingham interchange, I expect a similar link will be built there into BHX - so there may be cost synergies there.

 

[Aceshigh]

For years the North has been crying out for investment, but when the Secretary of State for Transport finally agrees to give them more funding but explains how he expects the 'North' to design and manage new infrastructure, there's uproar that he's 'shirking' responsibilit

That sounds like a brief from Sir Humphrey. ..

"Money ?

Oh come , come , what on earth are you poor misguided fools worried about, their's barrel loads of the stuff, my dear old things, but you really need to tell us where to spend it chaps".

Patronising tosh !

(And where exactly did he agree to more spending ? I missed that one ).

But as you ask there are numerous areas that could be addressed immediately without drowning us in a sea of Whitehall drivel.

3 easy hits !

The SE can have its clapped out Pacers back, and we'll have have their new rolling stock, there that's a fairly good start

Go ahead for Piccadilly expansion, this really is peanuts , and would allow for much higher connectivity between Victoria and Piccadilly via the New Ordsall Chord facilitating much better connectivity between stations across the whole region East and West , North and South NOT JUST MANCHESTER!

Extention of the Man Airport station link into the new T2 expansion where capacity is set to grow to 55m, paid in part by MAG but yes a "contribution" from Whitehall for a project that benefits the whole prosperity of the North.

Anymore ?

Coathanger are there REALLY no initiatives in The Midlands that you can come up with rather than focusing on more sublte negativity ?

I'm not sure whether implied criticism of yesterday's initiative is representative of Midlands folk in general, hopefully not as you would have to be blind not to realise they are faced by the same issues. I feel sure many in Birmingham might want to relook at HS2 and reinvest that money in the Midlands network generally. HS2 is constantly put forward as a panacea for all the North ills despite it being two generations away........ if ever !!!

Don't you want spades in the ground now rather than the mirage of a possible false promise?

Maybe the Midlands should also organise themselves into a cohesive force ? The inequality in transport spend is blinding there as well so please let's not start a new squabble this time featuring Aylings semantics.

One last point you couched yesterday's get together as " leaders" , very true and in every sense. Many of those were infact leading business people who have recognised that Whitehall has a responsibility to govern all of the UK not just the SE. They did state the "business case" for proper investment.

Of course projects in London are water tight but what about us in the SW, NE, Wales AND THE NORTH, do we all go to hell in hand cart if we can't prove a ROI day one ?

If we rely on every project meeting a "London criteria" why don't we all move there. I know it's ghastly but why not ?

Surely you recognise "proper" investment will reap much wider economic rewards ?