Transport for the North to become statutory body

[DavidB-AU]

Legislation to turn the Transport for the North partnership of 19 local authorities, business leaders and 11 local enterprise partnership areas into a statutory sub-national transport body with legal powers and duties was laid in Parliament on November 16.

 

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/policy/single-view/view/transport-for-the-north-to-become-statutory-body.html

[Mike Storey]

It will be very interesting to follow how this works in practice, with no controlling mind, unlike TfL or TS, or the nascent Welsh version. In other words, if parties who make up the membership, disagree on certain matters which would benefit most, but not them, how will that be resolved. Early days but let's hope it becomes effective as it grows.

[D854_Tiger]

It will be very interesting to follow how this works in practice, with no controlling mind, unlike TfL or TS, or the nascent Welsh version. In other words, if parties who make up the membership, disagree on certain matters which would benefit most, but not them, how will that be resolved. Early days but let's hope it becomes effective as it grows.

 

Don't mix the counties.

[Mike Storey]

Don't mix the counties.

 

Meaning?

[D854_Tiger]

Meaning?

 

Lancashire and Yorkshire.

[JeffP]

I think the folk behind this have either misheard or misunderstood the government.

they didn't say they wanted to create a "Northern Powerhouse". They said they wanted to have a "Nothern Poorhouse".

 

Hence the discrepency in cuts/funding:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42049922

 

We get cuts of £700 million.

The south gets INVESTMENT of £7 BILLION!!!!

[TheSignalEngineer]

Don't mix the counties.

Basing things on medieval county boundaries is a complete farce in the world of today. When WMPTE was set up it couldn't do anything for Tamworth or Lichfield, Redditch or Droitwich, et al because they weren't included in the ficticious West Midlands County.

 

With TfN the same thing will happen with bits of the Northern and TPE areas which don't lie within the administrative counties. Chesterfield is more related to Sheffield than it is to Derby. Parts pf Linclonshire are north of Doncaster but in the East Midlands, as are parts of Northamptonshire to the south of Banbury and Glossop.

 

Glossop and New Mills are much more related to Manchester than Derbyshire, but fares shoot up on crossing the boundary to the extent of a large number of people driving from New Mills to Marple to get the same train at a lower peak time fare.of £6.40 return rather than £10.10.

 

The time has come to end this sort of farce and set up these organisations based on the needs of people to travel for work and leisure based on where the houses and the facilities are, not on the course of some river where land owners came to an agreement over fishing rights in 1458

 

 

Edited to correct some boundaries.

Edited November 22, 2017 by TheSignalEngineer

[corneliuslundie]

But Chesterfield opted out of the new Sheffield conglomeration recently (sorry i can't remember the jargon). they felt that they belonged to Derbyshire.

 

And also from that report:

"Most regions in the north still receive more funding per person than other regions in the midlands and south of England."

though that doesn't seem to be completely borne out by the actual figures because by "midland and south of England they seem to have excluded London;

Northern Ireland - £11,042      Scotland - £10,651     London - £10,192     Wales - £10,076     North East - £9,680     North West - £9,429

UK average - £9,159

West Midlands - £8,846     Yorkshire and the Humber - £8,810     South West - £8,549     East Midlands - £8,282     East - £8,155     South East - £8,111

 

It's the South West, East Midlands and East  that should be complaining most. The South East has lots of jobs in London, after all and probably doesn't need so much public money.

But then you can prove anything with statistics.

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

I think Mike is "on the button" with his question about a controlling mind.

 

There are hundreds of sub-national transport authorities across the world, most of them doing a first-class job, but I think they all 'map onto' a single, democratically elected, sub-national authority, even if, in many cases, the services that they provide 'straggle' slightly 'over the border' for practical reasons.

 

IMHO, they work best were there is a very short, one tier of sub-national government, link between the transport authority and the electors ..... . A short lightning-rod from the voters to the seats of the transport officials!

 

So, I would add to Mike's question another one, about effective democratic accountability, especially if the authority somehow has private-sector components.

 

What is described in the RG article seems to be considerably less than a 'proper' transport authority, more a 'fancied-up lobbying body', but it does seem to have the power to obtain more powers, which sounds a blooming odd idea to me.

 

I'm not sure I would want such a potential 'non-accountable talking shop' running my local bus/train service.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Nearholmer

[phil-b259]

I think the folk behind this have either misheard or misunderstood the government.

they didn't say they wanted to create a "Northern Powerhouse". They said they wanted to have a "Nothern Poorhouse".

 

Hence the discrepency in cuts/funding:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42049922

 

We get cuts of £700 million.

The south gets INVESTMENT of £7 BILLION!!!!

 

The politics of envy will get you nowhere.

 

When the cost of a house in Stockport matches that of an identical house in Sutton or the price of a night out in Manchester is the same as that in London you might have a point. All the time it costs far more to build / operate anything in London & the South East, statements such as yours as nothing more than cheap headlines that can easily be demolished by anyone with half a brain.

 

Starving London & the South East of money and splashing the cash 'up north' will DO NOTHING to addresses the deep seated economic and cultural factors that have generated the 'North South divide' in the first place.

 

Is it healthy such a divide exists? - of course not. Are there any quick and easy ways to fix it (remembering that Governments cannot order private sector firms to vacate London in favour of Manchester - particularly when its going to be a struggle to keep certain business sectors in the UK in the first place due to Brexit)? - Certainly not.

Edited November 22, 2017 by phil-b259

[Nearholmer]

What might work/help would be to create a sub-national tier of government, equivalent to the GLA, covering a large slice of the heavily-populated parts of "the north", with a population of perhaps 5-10 Million, and to give it a proper transport authority, with full powers ........ maybe what we are seeing is a step in that direction.

 

But, North, East, South or West, people who live outside of major cities and conurbations, and the further out the worse for them, will always have thin/poor/inadequate/absent public transport provision, unless public money really does start to grow on trees, because it is so expensive to provide in areas of low population density ...... I think it was Dr Beeching who observed that it would be cheaper for the nation to buy each such person a Rolls Royce.

 

It's not pleasant news for rural-dwellers, and it applies to lots of other services too, but whatever your politics it is a fact that has to be faced: it's more cost efficient, up to a certain point, for us to live in herds, than in isolation.

[JeffP]

The politics of envy will get you nowhere.

 

When the cost of a house in Stockport matches that of an identical house in Sutton or the price of a night out in Manchester is the same as that in London you might have a point. All the time it costs far more to build / operate anything in London & the South East, statements such as yours as nothing more than cheap headlines that can easily be demolished by anyone with half a brain.

 

Starving London & the South East of money and splashing the cash 'up north' will DO NOTHING to addresses the deep seated economic and cultural factors that have generated the 'North South divide' in the first place.

 

Is it healthy such a divide exists? - of course not. Are there any quick and easy ways to fix it (remembering that Governments cannot order private sector firms to vacate London in favour of Manchester - particularly when its going to be a struggle to keep certain business sectors in the UK in the first place due to Brexit)? - Certainly not.

Demolished by anyone with half a brain?

 

But you haven't. You've shown how, and why stuff costs more, but NOT said why that leads to cuts for us, investment for them. If what you said was true, it'd be cuts for us, disastrous larger cuts for them.

 

And as for your last paragraph, where do I start?

Perhaps if we had been as far sighted as the French government in the late 50's and early 60's, where they told companies wishing to relocate to Paris that they were welcome to bring their headquarters and a token staff, but should they want to buid their manufacturing there, they would face tax hikes, restrictive laws and all sorts of planning problems. The same firms were then offered tax BREAKS and relaxed planning laws to locate their factories anywhere BUT Paris.

 

So no, they can't just say no, but there's ways and means if you want fairness and jobs spread round.

Sadly, no government in the UK has ever acknowledged that the Northern Poorhouse exists.....

 

And as for Manchester, it already gets too large a share of what does come North. Places that REALLY need investemnt are the old steel towns, the old shipbuilding places, and the mining towns...all conveniently forgotten.

 

Call it the politics of envy if you like, but that's just making excuses for what is a patently unfair sitaution, an "I'm alright Jack..." type of response, which I had hoped was dying out.

[Mike Storey]

I can see both sides of the argument here, and with a father from North Yorkshire, a wife from Manchester, but me as a London-lad (although born in Suffolk), I am used to such debates....

 

The reference to the French attempt at Regional distribution of wealth did not work primarily through punitive taxation. The vast majority of manufacturing capability remained wedded to Paris, although located outside its administrative area, in Pas de Calais, Alsace, and to some extent Normandy/Auvergne plus several other Departments in that orbit. The location of shipbuilding on the west coast was historic, but the creation of Toulouse as an aeronautics centre was a deliberate, subsidised enterprise, as was the emergence of Lyon as a major commercial and manufacturing centre, following major investment in road, air and especially rail connections to Paris. Bordeaux has managed to become a major centre for a number of things, but was desperate for the TGV link it has finally achieved, because it had decided it could not grow further without much better trains to Paris. Go figure, but that is how it works here. Most non-Parisiens hate Parisiens even more than English Northerners hate Southern Poofters. Hence HS2 follows the French logic, and has the support of most if not all, Northern English counties and cities, as the greatest growth driver.

 

The Northern Powerhouse contention, which primarily supports HS2 as the greatest wealth driver for its purview, argues that the full potential of that connectivity cannot be fulfilled without greater connectivity across the North to fulfil that potential. But it is not at all clear how that will work, with each part of the North competing with each other for funds. For example, my daughter used to live in Hebden Bridge, and now York, but wants to go back to Hebden Bridge. But HB ( a sort of Northern Hampstead but with a lot more water, often where you do not want water) is now a commuting town for Luvvies working at the gurt great, new Meeja Centre at Salford, who are largely Southern Poofters. They have been very loud in demanding better road and rail connections in to Manchester, and bit by bit, they are getting them. They think Northern prices are wonderful, and think nothing of paying Southern prices for houses. Hence rentals have exploded, and my daughter and her NHS employed husband are finding life rather more difficult than just a few years ago. But, wages have not risen in Hebden Bridge because they are there (they have certainly risen in and around Salford). A few lucky house sellers have made a lot of money, and many arty crafty shops are having a bonanza.

 

So I am not at all sure how this is supposed to work, because Greater Manchester is gaining employment and sushi bars, and Newcastle have Hitachi, Derby have Toyota, Barrow have lots more submarines to build and Sheffield have a new shopping centre (which apparently justifies diverting HS2). Leeds potters on meanwhile, somehow, with a huge amount of hidden wealth, based on financial and retailing sectors. I could not believe you can now walk into a Louis Vuitton in the town centre.  But where is the single idea for the North? London has one, and it has singularly great clout with its neighbours. Who will be the North's London? Or is there really no "North"? Is it really just the War of the Roses again, with the North East thrown in for added comic relief?

 

Some time soon, that decision will need to be made. Otherwise, follow the French. Neither Bordeaux nor Toulouse think it particularly important that people should be able to travel quickly and frequently between the two, despite being the two great powerhouses of the South West. But now Toulouse is really jealous of Bordeaux's TGV link, and fists are flying. Likewise, you could spend half a day getting from Lille to Amiens (by train), the French North's two powerhouses. They don't think it is very important, but you can sure get to Paris very quickly. So Paris always dominates. Is that what "The North" in England wants, if indeed "The North" is no more than a common sentiment expressed against a common "enemy"?

[Davey]

Demolished by anyone with half a brain?

 

But you haven't. You've shown how, and why stuff costs more, but NOT said why that leads to cuts for us, investment for them. If what you said was true, it'd be cuts for us, disastrous larger cuts for them.

 

And as for your last paragraph, where do I start?

Perhaps if we had been as far sighted as the French government in the late 50's and early 60's, where they told companies wishing to relocate to Paris that they were welcome to bring their headquarters and a token staff, but should they want to buid their manufacturing there, they would face tax hikes, restrictive laws and all sorts of planning problems. The same firms were then offered tax BREAKS and relaxed planning laws to locate their factories anywhere BUT Paris.

 

So no, they can't just say no, but there's ways and means if you want fairness and jobs spread round.

Sadly, no government in the UK has ever acknowledged that the Northern Poorhouse exists.....

 

And as for Manchester, it already gets too large a share of what does come North. Places that REALLY need investemnt are the old steel towns, the old shipbuilding places, and the mining towns...all conveniently forgotten.

 

Call it the politics of envy if you like, but that's just making excuses for what is a patently unfair sitaution, an "I'm alright Jack..." type of response, which I had hoped was dying out.

 

There's no chance of the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude disappearing. Its a social disease where more wants more. Put in a nutshell greed reigns supreme........unfortunately!

 

Davey

[phil-b259]

 

Perhaps if we had been as far sighted as the French government in the late 50's and early 60's, where they told companies wishing to relocate to Paris that they were welcome to bring their headquarters and a token staff, but should they want to buid their manufacturing there, they would face tax hikes, restrictive laws and all sorts of planning problems. The same firms were then offered tax BREAKS and relaxed planning laws to locate their factories anywhere BUT Paris.

 

 

 

That was before a thing called 'Globalisation' (and the EU single market), the rise of far east manufacturing kicked in plus before politicians became wedded to the mantra of 'free trade' became the only way to prosper.

 

Yes the UK Government could try and rig the tax system in the way that you describe - but in this day and age its more likely that companies will say 'sod you' and take their business outside of the UK. Hike trade tariffs I hear you say? - Nope the World Trade association might have a thing or two to say about that sort of 'protectionism'

[Talltim]

Most of our HR department moved to TfN*. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing..

 

*or was it Rail North?

[4630]

Most of our HR department moved to TfN*. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing..

 

*or was it Rail North?

 

 

And you've highlighted a good point there Tim

 

There's already a proliferation of quasi-official bodies with their collective fingers in the transport pie in the North.

 

Transport for the North,

Rail North

Transport for Greater Manchester

West Yorkshire Combined Authorities (in my part of Yorkshire.  I'm not aware of the equivalents in N, S & E Yorkshire, to say nothing of the north east or the large part of the north west that isn't Manchester!)

 

The cynic in me senses that it's just adding layer upon layer of people generating a lot of heat (and probably paperwork), but very little light and even less in the way of tangible improvements to transport infrastructure to support the needs of business and the population in the North.

 

To be fair, at least TfGM and the WYCA have been involved with local transport improvements, but IIRC both bodies came into being towards the end of already established major projects and merely took some of the glory on completion. 

 

So, where are the terms of reference for all these bodies?

 

Where is the accountability - both local and national?

 

Where is their funding derived from?

 

Who has the power?

 

How is that power exercised to determine the transport needs across a very large and diverse part of the country?

 

I await some clear answer to these, but I won't be holding my breath.

 

Oh, one other thought.  Transport for the North effectively gives the DaFT a 'get out of jail free card' for any future transport issues in the North.  Not our problem guv.  We've given you the responsibility (with or without the power) and a little bit of funding.   

[corneliuslundie]

"Oh, one other thought.  Transport for the North effectively gives the DaFT a 'get out of jail free card' for any future transport issues in the North.  Not our problem guv.  We've given you the responsibility (with or without the power) and a little bit of funding."

Standard policy for most governments dealing with most issues in any part of the country. Keep the control (in fact centralise it) but pass the buck on responsibility.  "Nothing to do with us - it's been devolved to you. What do you mean we didn't devolve the money to do it. That's your problem."

Jonathan

[Mike Storey]

"Oh, one other thought.  Transport for the North effectively gives the DaFT a 'get out of jail free card' for any future transport issues in the North.  Not our problem guv.  We've given you the responsibility (with or without the power) and a little bit of funding."

Standard policy for most governments dealing with most issues in any part of the country. Keep the control (in fact centralise it) but pass the buck on responsibility.  "Nothing to do with us - it's been devolved to you. What do you mean we didn't devolve the money to do it. That's your problem."

Jonathan

 

Not Dft but the Treasury. Dft have no money of their own to pass around, bar the odd station renovation.

 

I agree that if TfN do not persuade their membership to achieve consensus, they are pretty well f...ed.

[Nearholmer]

I share the cynicism about devolution, but then I can be pretty cynical about centralisation when governments go in for that, too.

 

But, back to the divide .......

 

It isn't a North/South divide, it's a 'post-heavy-industry' vs 'never-had-heavy-industry' divide, with Cornwall having been the first through the mill of de-industrialisation.

 

The industrial revolution and various wars, from about 1790 to 1950, drew people into ever-tighter clumps around mines, mills, factories, docks, and military-provisioning centres, creating dense populations.

 

Said mines, mills, factories, docks, and military-provisioning centres then closed, in about a tenth of the time it took to create them, leaving populations 'high and dry', with no work.

 

Look at the relative deprivation map below, and map onto it the mines, mills, factories, docks military-provisioning centres as existed in say 1930, and you will see the match is near perfect. And, since London is a usually-forgotten ex-industrial and dock city, it has some serious deprivation spots.

 

Doesn't answer the problem, but if you're going to prescribe medicine, it's always good to diagnose the disease correctly first.

 

PS: you can also see on the map the seaside resorts that grew-up to serve industrial workers, and went bust when everyone decided to go to Marbella instead of Margate,

Edited November 22, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Mark Saunders]

It only seems yesterday that there was the Bonfire of the Quangos and rather like a hydra another one pops up!

 

 

 

Mark Saunders

[SwissRailPassion]

Transport for the North will actually funnel money into the priorities across the north. Scotland has devolution and as a result has a clearer more proactive transport policy driven by democratic will than England.

 

England has the counties and then Whitehall. Many transport priorities simply don't get a look in. Since the destruction of the excellent PTE's, co-ordinated policy has been much more difficult. That's why TfN deserves a chance.

 

The people of the north voted against devolution but it would have been an effective instrument against Whitehall and largely corrupt and ineffective county councils.

[JeffP]

That was before a thing called 'Globalisation' (and the EU single market), the rise of far east manufacturing kicked in plus before politicians became wedded to the mantra of 'free trade' became the only way to prosper.

 

Yes the UK Government could try and rig the tax system in the way that you describe - but in this day and age its more likely that companies will say 'sod you' and take their business outside of the UK. Hike trade tariffs I hear you say? - Nope the World Trade association might have a thing or two to say about that sort of 'protectionism'

Oh, I agree with you here, Phil.

Sadly, we well and truly missed the boat.

 

Successive governments and successive councils are to blame. sat back and rubbed their hands when more and more jobs came, but failed to see the effect those jobs had on the infrastructure and what would happen when/if the jobs weren't there any more.