- Posts: 881
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:50 pm
My last reply on this, because its getting tiresome.
Urgh. Because it makes sense to compare more comparable areas, esp. when you think there are good reasons to spend more in certain areas than others.
Let me flip it around. Could we conclude by comparing spending in Wales with England as a whole that Wales is unfairly "overfunded" compared to England because spending per person has been 10% higher in Wales? No - that clearly be bonkers because needs differ.
I'm excluding London for this reason. Its so uncomparable to Wales (and indeed the rest of the UK) in this instance on the factors driving needs for transport infrastructure spending - population density, commuter flows, land prices, etc - that it just makes more sense to exclude it.
It doesn't make sense to exclude Cardiff on the same basis - it just isn't that different to other places in Wales (Swansea) and certainly other places in the UK
That happened but isn't listed as part of the metro scheme - which involved the (re)opening of some stations and the branding of the network.
Valley lines basically operate as a metro rail system, and its planned to be electrified. And the more I've thought about it, the less unfair the proposed funding arrangements seem.
So it might seem unfair the UK government is asking the Welsh Govt to pay the bulk of the Valleylines electrification costs - rail infrastructure is not devolved. However, rail operational subsidy is. And one of the big benefits of electrification is reduced subsidy costs. So if the UK government paid in full, the savings on operational costs would accrue to the Welsh Govt without them having paid towards the investment costs. In contrast for investment in the English network, both the investment costs and operational savings would ultimately accrue to the UK government. In this context, asking the Welsh Govt to contribute helps ensure in both instances, contributions are being made by those who ultimately save in subsidy costs.
I wasn't saying they should be excluded. I was basically pointing out most schemes involve a mix of financing sources - so its not all the supposedly machievelian workings of Westminster.
You just haven't proved that. You have just pointed out some shiny things other cities have - often largely funded by local sources or European sources, rather than UK government money - that Cardiff doesn't. Well why didn't Cardiff region raise the revenues locally via council tax and borrowing? Why didn't EU money get spent on these shiny things in S. E Wales given we got so much more of it? Indeed, what was the actual total investment in the S. E Wales area compared to these other areas? Nothing here, apart from accusations and assertions. For the period we do have figures for - post 1999 - not exactly a tiny time period - the figures actually show the opposite of what you assert.
And yes I am making some assertions too. But I think you need evidence to "prove" unfairness, rather than "disprove" it.
You seem to be moving the goalposts here. Swansea residents have to travel 85 miles to Bristol airport for decent flights - yet apparently the residents of Plymouth can get them from Newquay or Exeter which handle fewer than Cardiff.
So actually residents of Plymouth need to travel to Bristol (109 miles) for a decent service. Residents of Bournemouth need to travel for longer (to Bristol or Gatwick) despite a shorter distance. Norwich residents need to travel 86 miles to Stansted.
What do these cities have in common? They are sort of geographically peripheral. Not big enough to support a decent airport of their own, and a fair away from somewhere that is.
And airports in this country have been owned by local governments or private sector companies - so Swansea council or Welsh councils could invest in airports if they want.
I'm got nothing against proud Welsh patriotism - or even nationalism. But when the case seems to rest of the idea of financial ill treatment - which just isn't supported by a clear-lensed analysis - it actually does a disservice to Wales. As someone actually very proud to be Welsh, I just find it depressing that a more positive case for Wales taking more governmental initiative cannot be made.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Investment in public transport in Wales has been woefully inadequate for decades. That was my point. Since 1999 it may have been on par or very slightly above that of English regions - if London is excluded - but, then again, why don’t we exclude Cardiff from the Welsh figures?
Urgh. Because it makes sense to compare more comparable areas, esp. when you think there are good reasons to spend more in certain areas than others.
Let me flip it around. Could we conclude by comparing spending in Wales with England as a whole that Wales is unfairly "overfunded" compared to England because spending per person has been 10% higher in Wales? No - that clearly be bonkers because needs differ.
I'm excluding London for this reason. Its so uncomparable to Wales (and indeed the rest of the UK) in this instance on the factors driving needs for transport infrastructure spending - population density, commuter flows, land prices, etc - that it just makes more sense to exclude it.
It doesn't make sense to exclude Cardiff on the same basis - it just isn't that different to other places in Wales (Swansea) and certainly other places in the UK
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
The West Yorkshire Metro was not just a rebranding - I lived there when it occurred. The Airedale and Wharfedale rail lines were electrified, there was a massive investment in Leeds station (and also in Bradford Forster Square and Shipley stations).
That happened but isn't listed as part of the metro scheme - which involved the (re)opening of some stations and the branding of the network.
Valley lines basically operate as a metro rail system, and its planned to be electrified. And the more I've thought about it, the less unfair the proposed funding arrangements seem.
So it might seem unfair the UK government is asking the Welsh Govt to pay the bulk of the Valleylines electrification costs - rail infrastructure is not devolved. However, rail operational subsidy is. And one of the big benefits of electrification is reduced subsidy costs. So if the UK government paid in full, the savings on operational costs would accrue to the Welsh Govt without them having paid towards the investment costs. In contrast for investment in the English network, both the investment costs and operational savings would ultimately accrue to the UK government. In this context, asking the Welsh Govt to contribute helps ensure in both instances, contributions are being made by those who ultimately save in subsidy costs.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
If you are going to exclude English schemes part-funded by European money then you must also exclude the Ebbw Vale rail line, the Port Talbot Expressway and all of the bypasses on the A470/A483.
I wasn't saying they should be excluded. I was basically pointing out most schemes involve a mix of financing sources - so its not all the supposedly machievelian workings of Westminster.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Despite having a ready-made rail network that was ripe for modernisation/electrification Cardiff did not have the investment that similar sized cities such as Nottingham and Sheffield received.
You just haven't proved that. You have just pointed out some shiny things other cities have - often largely funded by local sources or European sources, rather than UK government money - that Cardiff doesn't. Well why didn't Cardiff region raise the revenues locally via council tax and borrowing? Why didn't EU money get spent on these shiny things in S. E Wales given we got so much more of it? Indeed, what was the actual total investment in the S. E Wales area compared to these other areas? Nothing here, apart from accusations and assertions. For the period we do have figures for - post 1999 - not exactly a tiny time period - the figures actually show the opposite of what you assert.
And yes I am making some assertions too. But I think you need evidence to "prove" unfairness, rather than "disprove" it.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
And going back to the lack of connectiveness of Swansea, if you compare it to other U.K. cities it is clear that it is the least-well connected city in the U.K.
For example, Stoke is close to Mcr Airport and has an electrified rail link to London that will reach Euston in 1 hour 20 minutes on the fastest trains. Hull has its own airport, as does Middlesbrough. Blackpool has an airport and a tram system. Leicester is very close to East Midlands airport.
The worst-connected cities in the U.K. are Dundee, Plymouth and Swansea. But Dundee is the same distance from Edinburgh airport as Swansea is from Cardiff Airport - the difference being that Edinburgh is a major international airport, so Dundonians need travel no further. Unlike the poor Jacks who must endure an 85 mile trip to get to the nearest decent airport, Bristol. As for Plymouth, its residents can choose between Exeter and Newquay airports which both offer similar flight destinations to those of Cardiff and are both only very slightly further away from Plymouth than Swansea is from Cardiff.
So there you have it. Cardiff/Newport/east and central Valleys is the only major metropolitan region in the U.K. with no modern metro, no electrified inter city train lines and no decent airport. On top of that Swansea is the worst-connected city in the U.K.
If it looks like underinvestment, smells like underinvestment and walks like underinvestment it probably is underinvestment. But I guess that you will probably - nay certainly - disagree.
You seem to be moving the goalposts here. Swansea residents have to travel 85 miles to Bristol airport for decent flights - yet apparently the residents of Plymouth can get them from Newquay or Exeter which handle fewer than Cardiff.
So actually residents of Plymouth need to travel to Bristol (109 miles) for a decent service. Residents of Bournemouth need to travel for longer (to Bristol or Gatwick) despite a shorter distance. Norwich residents need to travel 86 miles to Stansted.
What do these cities have in common? They are sort of geographically peripheral. Not big enough to support a decent airport of their own, and a fair away from somewhere that is.
And airports in this country have been owned by local governments or private sector companies - so Swansea council or Welsh councils could invest in airports if they want.
I'm got nothing against proud Welsh patriotism - or even nationalism. But when the case seems to rest of the idea of financial ill treatment - which just isn't supported by a clear-lensed analysis - it actually does a disservice to Wales. As someone actually very proud to be Welsh, I just find it depressing that a more positive case for Wales taking more governmental initiative cannot be made.