Something I've written about in the case of Warrington - places with peripheral economies should recognise their strengths, but must recognise it leaves vulnerabilities on city centre high streets:
The map of what's driving Wakefield's economy. Good illustration of the risks and rewards of out-of-town offerings.
Blog sets out Wakefield's promising plans to bolster the city centre and bring some of that economic activity inwards.
Come join us today at noon as we discuss our quickfire thoughts on the Integrated National Transport Strategy, published last week:
And finally, 'can't it be a bus' is a fair question from DfT/Treasury. The fact is that making buses frequent and reliable in Leeds would have 4x the connectivity impact of Phase 1 of its tram extension.
Trams have capacity/permanence benefits, but they shouldn't preclude lower hanging fruit.
I don't think the causality just goes one way. I also think better PT connectivity deepens labour markets and makes big cities more attractive to the productive firms that generate prosperity. But you can't argue this without showing understanding of what you're connecting residents too
It's a good point. We've been thinking about public transport in big cities as providing *access* to prosperity - you still need the right jobs/businesses generating that prosperity in the first place.
e.g. Manchester - its the city centre that allows its improved transport to spread prosperity
See our write up this morning, and a map that will give you a flavour of the deeper data work we're going to do on this in the next few weeks
Chart showing minimum wage variation across UK cities, Doncaster at top, Reading at bottom.
Something missing from today's coverage of the minimum wage uplift is how it 'bites' differently across the UK.
We're talking from 82% of the median wage in Doncaster (equiv to Chile) to 53% in Reading (Japan).
This national policy is doing very different things in different labour markets.
A good international example on locally set visitor levies told through some great visuals - check out Zoe's work what it could mean for fiscal devolution to city regions
Details on how we modelled this and how the impact of integrated transport in Sheffield measures up against other big cities in our report from the end of last year:
Fittingly, a People's Network could better connect many more people to Sheffield city centre (162,000 more within an easy half hour journey according to our modelling).
Most of that comes from better (more orange) buses, but integration with tram and rail crucial too
Slough is the UK's most productive city. But where do the proceeds go?
This viz I made offers a clue and shows why access versus constraints to a strong economy are so important for local living standards.
In which I use Slough to show that these lessons still apply even in places where the local economy and resident living standards seem to bear no relation. Still highlights the importance of having a local payoff to local economic strengths.
See this typically Ballardian response from a snippet of Iain Sinclair that I read yesterday
If you need more detail than this summary blog, check out the full rail devolution briefing and a thread here:
Manchester Merseyrail? Leeds Overground?
Some of the possibilities that the Railways Bill could unlock for big cities in the future.
The risk is these potential moves for big cities gets lost in the weeds while GBR takes shape. Local and national govt can keep rail devolution on track.
3. True - didn't focus on London for this one - what about it in particular?
2. Not yet - but these are going in one direction for metro mayors! And the 'local commissioning' agreements allow for meaningful farebox control which may sharpen minds on further and future fiscal devo in other areas. I'm sure this will be partial at first, so flexibility definitely needed
Fair challenges - some quick responses:
1. That is true. But these can be dealt with (and have in the past under earlier PTEs). Defining commuter areas can hash out revenue sharing agreements between areas. And (longer term) greater local powers could rationalise some services (within reason)
A fun quick-fire policy piece for me, which involved sifting through old policy (and BBC rail programmes!). Have a deeper read here👇
www.centreforcities.org/publication/...
How? Look to the past - 'Section 20' powers allowed devolved rail and integrated transport in big cities under BR - local branding, setting frequencies and ticketing, fiscal risk - could even tackle stopping services crossing boundaries. As this delightful Railwatch clip shows
Finally the Bill. The statutory provisions for mayors are there, but fairly non-commital. GBR 'may' enter into arrangements with MSAs and 'have regard' to local transport plans. For established mayors in big cities, this could be stronger and clearer.
Second: the goal is integrated transport in big cities. The means is incidental. Mayors should have this mind and be flexible about how they get there. This also means DfT recognising a national integrated transport strategy sees this goal. We wait for INTS with bated breath...
A big task in many places. Which is why Manchester's progress on Bee Network rail (expected end of this year) should be trailblazer for other places to set the standard and streamline the process
First: big cities should aim for 'local commissioning by default'. This is the minimum viable product for integrated networks in big cities, and is key if GBR is to meet national economic ambitions. That means extra capacity for mayors where needed.
The key message out of this - the national rail reform agenda is incomplete long-term without meaningful rail devolution to big cities - more than just yellow trains in Manchester. This is as important as the fusion of track and train powers. It means alignment between mayors, GBR and DfT in places:
But flexibility comes with uncertainty which could stop rail devo in its tracks. 'Bottom up' approach leaves uncertainty on GBR's aims, mix of models, and whether mayors will be limited by capacity. I think key to this is lack of economic framework over the specific role of intra-city rail in GBR
The Railways Bill has provisions for this. Most encouragingly is a flexible partnership framework for mayors, which recognises the different capacities and network considerations in each area, and a baseline commitment to collaborate and devolve powers. So far so good.
