Despite substantial additional investment in the railway network, there are still real funding gaps between London and regions in need of economic regeneration, which will worsen if not addressed more directly,say MP’s
The report into rail infrastructure in the UK released today by the House of Commons Transport Committee, says current transport scheme appraisal methods will always favour London as they are weighed heavily towards the reduction of congestion and journey time savings. This actively disadvantages less economically buoyant regions and works against the Government’s intention to “rebalance the economy”.
The Committee’s report also finds that electrification schemes which were cancelled in 2017 fell victim to the well-documented problems that there was simply no more money available
However, the Secretary of State’s decision focused entirely on the passenger benefits of the Department’s new bi-mode approach, themselves uncertain, and seemed to ignore the environmental costs. The Committee urges the Government to do more to support the development, testing and ultimate deployment of new technologies on the network.
Meanwhile, the Committee recommends the cancelled electrification schemes be recategorised as pending and placed in the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline (RNEP) for further development and design work with a particular focus on reducing the costs.
The Chair of the Committee, Lilian Greenwood MP, said:
“The Secretary of State’s cancellation of three rail electrification schemes in the Midlands, south Wales and Lake District only to be followed four days later by the announcement in principle to fund Crossrail 2 in London unsurprisingly re-ignited the debate about disparities in rail infrastructure investment between London and other regions.
The Treasury’s own data shows that spending per head in London in 2016/17 was more than ten times that of the East Midlands. Regional economies will never be able to catch up with London while such inequalities exist. While we accept that annual snapshots of comparative regional investment can be problematic, and that investment in one area can lead to benefits in another, some regions have faced decades of under-investment in their parts of the rail network. They deserve to have a clear sense of what the Government is doing to help them attract transport investment and grow economically. The Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine will struggle to live up to their names without tangible change.”
