14 Some context and data that will shape future projects

Back to: 13 The Rail Industry Wales and HS2

Next page: 15 The priority transport schemes in Wales to 2040

In The priority transport schemes in Wales to 2040 I set out some of the possible projects that should in my view come forward across Wales in the period to 2040. Before I do, I think it is helpful to set out a little of the policy context and data which ought to shape the transport planning process that precipitates such schemes.

In this chapter I cover:

14.1 Welsh transport policy and transport objectives

Figure 190 Wales Transport Strategy – Sustainable Transport Hierarchy

Over the last few years Welsh Government have set out its ambitions for transport in Wales. For example, Welsh Governments: “A railway for Wales: the case for devolution”[1], “Mainline Railway-Enhancement Requirements” [2] and “The Rail Network in Wales – The Case for Investment”[3] as well as the recommendations of the South East Wales Transport Commission (SEWTC)[4] and the more recent North Wales Transport Commission (NWTC) final report[5]. The 2021 Union Connectivity Review (UCR)[6], in the main, also endorsed the emerging programmes in respect of the SWML and NWML. The Western Gateway 2050 Rail Vision also fully reflected the work of TfW’s SWML Programme. In Summer 2024, I also know that the new Wales Rail Board has been working on a draft Wales Rail Enhancement Pipeline since 2023, which reflects all this earlier work and development. I would be very surprised if there are many differences between the Wales Rail Board priorities and those set out in the next chapter, The priority transport schemes in Wales to 2040.

The policy foundation for all this work has also been completely updated via the Wales Transport Strategy – Llwybr Newydd[7]; which has changed the presumed priority of road use with Active Travel, Public Transport coming ahead of private car use Figure 190.

Net Zero Wales (NZW)[8] also set out challenging mode shift targets Table 1. Nor can we ignore the increasing body of evidence[9] associated with poor air quality and the increase in a whole range of health conditions and premature deaths resulting from excessive car use.

Table 1 Net Zero Wales Mode Share Targets

Mode	Current Share	By 2030	By 2040
Car	70%	60%	50%
Public Transport	5%	7%	13%
Active Travel	27%	33%	35%

The NZW targets aspire to see a 40% increase of Public Transport (from 5% to 7% mode share) by 2030 and a further doubling by 2040 (to 13%). These PT and AT targets will be higher in urban areas like Cardiff[10] Figure 191 and a little lower in more rural areas where car accessibility will still be important.

Figure 191 Mode share targets from CCC Transport White Paper

As regards the “Metro” regional transport programmes, In October 2021, the ex-Deputy Minister for Climate Change, Lee Waters, set out WG ambitions[11] through the work being undertaken across Wales by TfW. These ambitions were illustrated in a series of Metro maps and narrative now available on the TfW website [12]. I also presented my own view of these details in a “Metro Update blog[13]” early in 2022.

In the Cardiff Capital Region (CCR) the nascent regional body has also set out its Passenger Rail Vision[14] and local authorities like Cardiff Council have set out ambitions for schemes like the Cardiff Crossrail[15] in its Transport White Paper[16] Figure 192 . The emerging regional bodies and Corporate Joint Committees (CJC) will likely reflect much of this work in their upcoming regional Transport Plans. TfW has also reorganised its teams and resources to support this effort.

Figure 192 Cardiff Council’s 2019 Transport White Paper

I would also add the very real need to secure Wider Economic Benefits (including agglomeration) from investment in transport and that a focus on Transit Oriented Development around the Metro network is essential. The region’s local authorities need to take a lead in this regard.

These considerations must be applied to how all decision re: transport infrastructure investment decisions are made in Wales – this is not quite the case today.

Furthermore, the fact that rail powers are not devolved, is a hindrance to developing and delivering rail schemes in Wales consistent with WG objectives and especially in way that integrate with wider transport proposals – especially bus and active travel (See The Rail Industry, Wales and HS2).

14.2 Data & key facts to consider in Wales

Figure 193 From UCL Luminocity[17] Population/Activity Density in Wales (2011 Census Data)

When talking about future Transport Scheme Development, I think a little data is useful. Table 2 and Table 3 which draw in official ONS and/or Stats Wales data, provide some quantitative views. Too often misty eyes romanticism for particular projects is propagated with little or no reference to the actual demographics and distribution and density thereof in Wales. So, I think the illustration from “Luminocity” at UCL Figure 193 is very instructive in terms of where people actually live in Wales and the density thereof.

Rather than copy data from other sources, I have listed some of the key providers that I think help shape thinking about broader demographic, economic and transport demand considerations for transport in Wales:

Welsh Government Stats Wales Stats Wales – Catalogue (gov.wales)
Office of National Statistics (ONS) Home – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)
Office of Road and Rail (ORR) Home page | Office of Rail and Road (orr.gov.uk)
ORR Data Portal Home | ORR Data Portal

Table 2 Summary data for each “Metro Region”

Region	Local Authorities	Population (2023 mid yr)[18]	GVA/Head 2021(UK=100) [19]	GDHI (UK=100) 2020 [20]	LSOA in top 10% WIMD 2021[21]
North Wales	Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Gwynedd, Yns Mon, Wrexham	691k (21.8%)	75.5%	83.4	23 (12%)
Cardiff Capital Region		1,561k (49.3%)	76.7%	82	126 (66%)
	VoG, Bridgend, RCT, Caerphilly, Torfaen, Merthyr Tydfil, Monmouthshire, Caerphilly, Blaenau Gwent, Newport	1,176k (37.2%)		(73>104)	87 (45.5%)
	Cardiff	383k (12.1%)		82.4	39(20.4%)
Swansea Bay & West Wales	Swansea, Neath Port Talbot, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire	705k (22.3%)	71.2%	80.2	40 (21%)
Mid Wales	Powys and Ceredigion	207k (6.5%)	59.4%	84.4	2 (1%)
Total		3,164k	74.1	82.1	191

Note: LSOA – Lower Super Output Area are geographic subregions of different physical sizes, but of roughly equal population (approx. 1,500.), WIMD is the Welsh Index of Multiple Degradation

Table 3 Wales Built Up Area (BUA) Population from “City Population” (ONS 2021 Census[22]).

Urban Area	Population	Area (Km²⁾	Density (/Km²⁾
*Top BUAs in Wales*
Cardiff	464,635	109	4,280
Newport	318,852	96	3,306
Swansea	299,871	98	3,048
Bridgend	66,749	21	3,133
Wrexham	65,200	18	3,655
Buckley	62,951	24	2,601
Tonypandy	61,545	13	4,760
*Example BUAs outside Wales…*
Manchester	2,720,316	592	4,596
Leeds	1,860,546	447	4,160
Liverpool	891,211	204	4,362
Newcastle	790,636	189	4,177
Nottingham	762,786	183	4,177
Bristol	680,377	150	4,526
Leicester	559,017	115	4,858

Figure 194 Commuting patterns in CCR (ONS Census 2011)

Population metrics

Based on the above data sets [23] and illustrations one can infer:

Wales population of 3.1M is not evenly dispersed, in fact it is very concentrated in Cardiff/southeast Wales, Swansea Bay and northeast Wales
50% of Wales’s population, over 1.5M people, live within ~35km of Cardiff, in the ten local authorities of the Cardiff Capital Region (CCR); the population of the Cardiff local authority is 383k and by far the biggest and the most densely populated
Swansea Bay & West Wales (the local authorities of Swansea, Neath Port Talbot, Pembrokeshire & Carmarthen) has a population of ~700k (22% of Welsh pop.); North Wales (Conway, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Gwynedd, Yns Mon and Wrexham) is nearly 700k (22%) and Mid Wales (Powys and Ceredigion) is only 207k (6.5%)
Whilst the population of the Cardiff Local authority area is 383k (ONS July 2024 estimate for mid-year 2023) its Built Up Area (BUA) is ~470k with a density of nearly 43pph, amongst the highest in the UK and comparable with Liverpool, Nottingham, Manchester and Newcastle BUAs. Combining Cardiff BUA with adjacent & contiguous Newport BUA gives a population of 780k; in fact, most of urban SE Wales has relatively high population density in UK terms.

The ONS has also introduced another unit called agglomerations[24] which provide another level of analysis. On this measure the Cardiff agglomeration is 581k, Newport, 343k, Tonypandy 84k Aberdare 57k, Merthyr 46k and Ebbw Vale 60k. These contiguous demographic units have a combined population of 1.12M – all with relatively high density.
Similarly urban Swansea, Neath and Llanelli has a high population density, as does Wrexham/NE Wales area (although the absolute population is lower); See Table 3 for main BUA stats for Wales
Looking beyond borders, over 3M people live in the region covering Swansea, Cardiff Newport and Bristol; similarly, over 0.5M people live in the region spanning northeast Wales, Chester and South Wirral.

Given these population data, the implications, supported by the academic data (See 12.6 Transport modes) is that there is clearly a large potential market for segregated high capacity “turn up and go” transit in Cardiff and southeast Wales and in/around Swansea/Neath/Llanelli and in some of northeast Wales (esp. when cross border trips to Chester & the Wirral are included). These are evidently material considerations if we want to determine where we can most quickly and efficiently decarbonise our mobility choices.

The stark reality though, is that most of the rest of Wales is sparsely populated with low population densities Figure 193 and certainly lower than one might typically require to invest in traditional fixed heavy rail systems, so we need to look to innovation in rail (See 15.9 Rail innovation in northwest Wales) and more traditional bus services in such areas. The topology of most of Wales is also challenging.

Economic metrics

On the economic metrics there are also some relevant observations. Wales GVA is approximately 74% of the UK average (UK=100) with a total economy of about £70Bn or £22,400 / capita (similar to places like Italy or Portugal). However, we should be cognisant that it is becoming increasingly clear to many economists (e.g., Kate Raworth[25] and the international student led Rethinking Economics movement [26] ) that GDP and GVA are a poor means of assessing an economy. More especially because they fail to properly account for many of the negative externalities associated with our economic activities (especially carbon emissions and environmental degradation). We also can’t ignore the reality that the recent reduction per capita in the UKs carbon emissions, is due in part to offshoring much of the activities (esp. manufacturing) that generate such emissions[27].

Despite that, when looked at on a regional basis in Wales, GVA ranges from 60 to 77 (UK=100). The figure for Cardiff is actually 117 and Blaenau Gwent just 46, but this is not a useful analysis given that commuting distorts such figures, and such analysis are only really useful at a regional level or Travel to Work Area (TTWA).

More instructive perhaps is that there are more LSOA in the top 10% of WIMD in Cardiff (39 out of 129 – so over 20% of the Welsh total) than anywhere else in Wales. Similarly, the highest Gross Domestic Household Incomes (GDHI UK=100) are in Flintshire (90) the Vale of Glamorgan (97) and Monmouthshire (104 ) and not Cardiff(82), which is at about the Welsh average. The lowest in Wales include places like Blaenau Gwent(68) and Gwynedd (75). The highest regional figures are for mid Wales (84) and north Wales (83).

Commuting statistics

Looking at the commuting data (so not reflective of all trips) from Stats Wales for 2022, we can see the largest movements, and where more public transport can have most impact to help deliver our decarbonisation obligations are local and intra-regional trips. It is also clear that commuting numbers are perhaps 10~20% lower than pre-Covid.

Cardiff & southeast Wales has ~708k working residents and a daily working population of ~678k; about 52k (7.5%) people commute out, mainly to Bristol/SW England, Swansea & London/SE England; and ~22k commute into the region
North Wales has ~320k working residents and a daily working population of ~300k ; about 35k (11%) people commute out mainly to Cheshire West/Chester, Wirral, Liverpool & Manchester and some to the West Midlands and London
Swansea Bay & west Wales has ~318k working residents and a daily working population of ~320k; about 20k (6.5%) commute out and 22k commute in
Mid Wales has ~96k working residents and daily working population of ~97k; about 12k (13%) commute mainly to the West Midlands).

The biggest and most important cross border movements (although smaller than intra-regional) are between Cardiff & southeast Wales and Bristol/southwest England (and why this corridor was identified by Lord Peters Hendy’s Union Connectivity Review[28] for investment by UK Government) and northeast Wales and Chester/Cheshire West/Wiral.

Whilst economically important, trips further afield to places like Manchester, Liverpool, West Midlands and London/southeast England are actually a small proportion of total trips in Wales. In fact, across Wales’s working population of ~1,440k only ~79k (or ~5.5%) are commuting over the border.

So, a local and intra-regional focus is of primary importance when assessing Wales’s rail investment priorities (Vs schemes in England like HS2, IRP) and is consistent with one of the findings of the 2006 Eddington Transport Study[29], in that most of our mobility challenges and issues are intra-regional, and for this reason…

“… the strategic economic priorities for long-term transport policy should be growing and congested urban areas and their catchments….”

Station passenger numbers ( PAX )

A commonly used rail metric is the ORR station passenger usage data (PAX). These are published annually and whilst sometimes distorted by ticket destinations not always matching actual trip destination (especially for shorter urban trips) it is still helpful. For our purposes, it’s not the absolute numbers here that are important but the comparison between different places in Wales.

To exemplify, in 2019 (pre-Covid) the annual passenger flows through the rail stations at Haverfordwest, Aberystwyth, Carmarthen and Bangor (the busiest in north Wales) were 124k, 310k, 385k and 670k per year. In comparison, Penarth, Pontypridd, Cathays and Cardiff Bay were 740k, 935k, 1,160k and 1,720k respectively. Places like Cardiff Central, Queen St, Newport, Swansea had (pre-Covid) passenger numbers counted in the millions. Cardiff Central had over 10M in 2023 so nearly back to its 13M pre-Covid high.

As set out earlier, there are some stations with low frequency services resulting in lower PAX than would otherwise be possible given local catchment population. This particularly impacts many stations in Cardiff and places like Skewen and Llansamlet in Swansea as well as a number of stations on the Borderlands and NWML.

In terms of commuting, the scale of movement within the CCR is also complex, with by the far the most movements to/from and within, Cardiff. However, there is much cross-region movement as illustrated in the Stats Wales data. The visualisation of ONS 2011 data Figure 194 also illustrates the patterns which demonstrate the very different mobility challenges across the CCR. In terms of mode share, the region is still over reliant on car use, which for commuting makes up over 70% of journeys.

Route catchment

Another useful metric is the actual catchment population around a station or a route section. This in many circumstances provides a proxy for actual demand for services. It is instructive to note the large variation in proposed service frequencies and route catchment for planned CVL Metro services Figure 195. This I think helps make the case for some of the further measures I set out in 15.5 Cardiff, the Cardiff Capital Region and Crossrail – especially as regard the Coryton and City Lines in Cardiff.

There is also merit in exploring individual station catchment (existing and proposed) using the industry standard population within 800M of a station. Some stations on the CVL have very low catchments ( eg Tir Phil ~ 1,600, Merthyr Vale ~1,200, Rhymney ~980) whereas others have very significant catchment potential (Crwys Rd ~19,500, Roath Park ~ 6,600, Ninian Park ~5,900).

Figure 195 800M line catchment population vs planned service frequency on CVL

Operating costs and government support for services

We can all be distracted by the capital costs of projects and so overlook the more important operational costs and often more constrained government financial support for public transport service. Such analysis has been thrown somewhat by the impact of Covid and the resulting change in travel patterns, which still have not settled, presenting all sorts of challenges in both rail and perhaps especially bus service support. In trying to get a complete picture one can draw data from a range of sources, including the WG[30], DfT[31], ORR[32], StatsWales[33], HMTs Country and Reginal Analysis[34] and TfW[35].

As best as I can determine (as at October 2023), the key headlines for me, re Wales (and noting the that figures are still changing post Covid and that rail patronage is recovering ), and presenting an order of magnitude picture rather than precise details, are:

Total support for bus services in Wales was pre-Covid approximately £100M per year (Cf Covid emergency bus funding which was approx. £150M pa). This is split with approximately £30~40M allocated via Bus Service Support Grants (BSSG) support for bus services and approx. £60M for concessionary fares. Looking ahead we can probably expect levels of support at about £120/130M pa
The total number of concessionary and non-concessionary bus trips in 2021/22 was about the same at 28m per year. Pre Covid non-concessionary trips were at the 50m level and concessionary about 45m. So, there has been a significant fall in bus patronage. WG is developing a new simpler bus funding mechanism
Whilst TfW is collecting only about £40/50M in rail fares pa (still lower than pre-Covid – but latest figures show gap is closing and likely will disappear especially when CVL Metro works and new W&B fleet roll out are complete later in 2025) WG support of rail services was over £300M pa in 2021/22 (vs just £175M in 2019/20) and estimated at about £250M pa in the next few years. This varies from very high subsidy low demand rural routes like the HoW line and services in West Wales, vs higher demand routes like the CVL (which post CVL transformation are expected to become much more efficient)
The gap between rail farebox and operational costs is expected to close once all the planned new rolling stock is operational and when the £1Bn transformation of the core Valley Lines is complete. The approximate two-year delay has had a temporary impact on Welsh Government with a higher subsidy requirement for perhaps 2 more years vs that anticipated pre Covid in 2018
WG Capital spending on roads in Wales in the next few years is still expected to be higher than for rail and bus, although the bulk of this is likely to for road maintenance
WG transport spending makes up on 3-4% of WG expenditure (and just over 20% of capital outlays) Vs Health and Education which are nearly 70%. In comparison, England and Scotland allocate over 5% to transport and 25% of capital outlays
Investment on transport (esp. capital spending) in Wales is lower than most other nations and regions of the UK; London is by far the highest with a per capita figure of £612 per capita vs Wales at just £224 per capita.

Once we have fully operational Metro services, post Bus Reform legislation being passed by the Senedd enabling a more integrated rail/bus network, then these figures will look different again.

It is important to stress that an effective public transport system needs both rail and bus, and for them to work together as part of an integrated system. There are some voices saying we should focus on bus and not rail, because bus is less costly. This is wrong and as set out in 12.6 Transport modes the outputs and functions of rail and bus in an integrated system are very different. In densely populated urban areas and on high demand corridors rail (the arteries) is always the most efficient mode to carry people; with integrated feeder bus services (the capillaries) then public subsidy can be even more effectively deployed.

The challenge in Wales is that we also have many rail operations serving areas of lower population and/or with much lower demand than the Valley Lines and SWML in southeast Wales. It is those less patronised rail services that attract the much higher opex per passenger. To exemplify, the population density of the Cardiff Bult Up Area is over 40 pph and the Swansea BUA 30pph, whereas there are no major urban areas in Pembrokeshire or Carmarthen which have county population densities of just 0.76 pph and 0.70 pph respectively.

What I think is needed, is a far more granular analysis of costs, farebox, demand, etc at the level of individual routes and services – both rail and bus. Using Wales only figures to compare modes is not very useful in trying to ensure we allocate public money most effectively.

Today all these figures present a stark picture of the reality and challenges of government financing. More concerning is that to begin to deliver the further PT capacity implied by our NZW mode shift targets, will require a commensurate increase in PT spending – both capital and revenue – this will require a rebalancing of relative funding priorities between government departments.

14.3 Primary transport issues

Building on the underlying data and broader context, and looking forward into the 2030s, the transport schemes we develop and deliver have to be focussed on addressing the primary transport issues in Wales. These include:

High car dependency, mode share and consequential carbon emissions, air quality degradation, RTAs, and wider external costs and impacts (See 10.6 Externalities – costs (especially health) & benefits)
Multiple markets (local and long distance) on NWML, SWML and Marches Line being sub optimally served by one train service product
No dedicated commuter rail in Swansea Bay
Poor Swansea – Cardiff – Bristol Temple Meads rail services
Major network rail bottlenecks (Cardiff West, Chester, etc)
Limited bus/rail integration with fragmented bus services, networks and fares, planning and operations thereof, and need for Bus Reform
Limited Active Travel Infrastructure – especially in our urban areas
A planning system which is seemingly disconnected from transport with limited application of Transit Oriented Development
Lack of equity in apportioning external costs and benefits across modes – especially car use
Post Covid financial challenges of operating public transport services and especially bus, and particularly in areas of lower demand.

All the above have influenced my thinking and approach to transport planning and all play some part in shaping WG Transport policy and more detailed transport scheme development and implementation. These challenges are further exacerbated by some policy and funding challenges, for example:

Some misalignments of policy and actions of, and between, WG and Local Authorities. For example, ambitious NZW targets constrained by limited funds resulting in reduced public support for bus services whilst at the same time we are supporting free or subsidised car parking; similarly, resistance in some cases to providing more bus lanes
Securing levels of capital and revenue funding commensurate with NZW targets and that is reflective of the wider benefits of PT and that often get underplayed in formal appraisal.

14.4 Transport Planning at TfW

In 2019, TfW was still very much a procurement engine and contract management organisation set up for the Wales and Borders rail franchise. Since then, TfW has started to develop a strategic thinking mind able to bring forward major programmes of integrated multi modal transport schemes in partnership with WG, UK Government, NR and Local Authorities across Wales.

This is not only based on the growing expertise and capability of TfW’s Planning Directorate, but of very sophisticated transport models that now cover all of Wales, as well as the pragmatic application of the Welsh Transport Appraisal Guidelines (WelTAG) with an intent to bring forward fewer, bigger and more strategic packages of interventions. Whilst many smaller more tactical schemes will continue to be led by Local Authorities, TfW now has a body of expertise that can also be used to support such schemes, especially as regards Active Travel. This work also includes the perhaps more complex and challenging and longer-term task of integrating franchised bus services and redesigned bus networks as part of our Metros, in terms of services and networks, and of fares/ticketing.

So, almost in the shadow of the actual work to build the current phased of the South Wales Metro, TfW’s Transport Planning efforts have been focused on bringing forward potential schemes for development and delivery in the period 2024-2030 and beyond.

In my view, what WG and local authorities had typically done in the past was to bring forward smaller and more tactical stand-alone mode focussed interventions, perhaps unconsciously limited by annual budget limitations and constraints on delivery capability. Whilst there will always be funding challenges and tough choices, this leaves officials exposed to smaller more politically inspired schemes that don’t really make sense from a strategic perspective.

For example, the calls for a stand-alone Velindre Parkway station on the Swansea district Line (SDL) is one such example. Now, via TfW’s work in Swansea Bay and West Wales with the local authorities, the underlying requirements of that scheme have been better assessed and solutions appraised as part of the larger and more strategic Swansea Bay and West Wales Metro programme (See 15.6 Swansea Bay and west Wales).

TfW now have a number of mature regionally structured development programmes, which reflect Welsh Government policy and objectives. They are multi modal in nature and focussed on strategic regional schemes – bus, rail and active travel – as well as in some cases local station regeneration schemes. Working with the regions and local authorities, these programmes try to curate and bring forward supportable and fundable schemes that balance the purity of transport planning with spatial and political realities and expectations across Wales. There is an expectation that these TfW Metro plans will form the foundation of future Regional Transport Plans (RTPs) with the regions and their local authorities.

To augment, in my view, local authorities also need to focus on smaller and fine grain schemes – and in so doing address issues like road space re-allocation (especially for bus-lanes and cycleways) and Transit Oriented Development. In parallel I also hope to see more progress on Strategic Regional Development plans (SDPs) with a focus on Transit Oriented Development (See Why we need Transit Oriented Development).

In developing the cases for rail and transport schemes, transport planners use a range of procedures and tools within the context of WebTAG[36] and WelTAG[37] ; and the guidance published by UK Government and WG on their application (which can change and has done since Covid).

Transport and rail planning professional also use rail demand forecasting tools like MOIRA[38], data sourced from formal tickets sales via LENNON[39] (which is short for “Latest Earnings Networked Nationally Overnight“) and now sophisticated multimodal transport models which are coded and input with trip data. Much of the necessary modelling data used to be sourced from surveys, but over the last ten years it has been more common and effective to use mobile phone data based on mast cell location; now such systems are being fed with GPS data which provides an even finer grain view (albeit at a cost – this is one of the places your location data ends up.).

However, all such tools and models are just images of the real world, they need to be calibrated, benchmarked and checked as sometimes trying to model and predict future flows can miss key factors or misrepresent the relative influence of individual factors amongst many[40]. We do need to have one eye on the real world when processing and sense checking data from transport models.

We do tend (even subconsciously) to over value the sometimes-illusory quantification of transport user benefits, VoT (See 12.3 Value of time (and Quantum Physics) and incremental changes thereof, because we can “count” them (even if we don’t really appreciate the margin of error that apply or the quantisation of that metric) vs those things which are clearly beneficial but much harder, in the traditional sense, to count.

There is also a philosophical change now influencing transport planning and modelling. For years we adopted the ”predict and provide” approach to try and assess what movement would result from a particular set of interventions. Now, with the absolute need to secure significant mode shift away from car, a “define and provide” approach is beginning to take over. This means we start with the trip rates and the mode share we want and in effect put the model in reverse to try and determine what the input factors should be – so the infrastructure, services, price, journey times, service frequencies, etc

As I have set out earlier in Transport Planning and choices, whilst perhaps there are some clearly “wrong answers” in transport planning terms, there are seldom obvious “right answers”, there are only choices and implications, shaped by values, policy priorities and available funding. TfW is now able to help WG, the regions and their local authorities make those choices based on its developing strategic analytical capacity and capability. As set out in 7.7 Helping TfW from 2020 to 2024 , it really won’t be possible for TfW to satisfy everyone in developing plans for transport in Wales.

14.5 The role of Cardiff

In undertaking my Metro journey, I have often (and still do) come up again the, “Cardiff gets everything narrative”. I don’t get it, Cardiff does not “get everything” and the economic data demonstrate it has issues like everywhere else in Wales. So, I am a little weary of some voices “beating on Cardiff”; without Cardiff, Wales would be a poorer place.

I don’t want to underplay the economic issues across Wales, but the reality is that the challenges facing some communities in the valleys are not that different from places like Tremorfa or Ely.

Where Cardiff is different, is in in population and density; it has 380k in its local authority (and nearly 500k in its the wider Built-Up Area) and with a much higher population density than anywhere else in Wales; and more density can be more environmentally friendly.

The GDP/ capita is higher because there are more jobs in places like Cardiff City Centre, the Bay, Heath which pull in 80k commuters a day (down by 20k from pre-Covid) from outside the city, as well as 160k commuters from within the city itself. But to note, even though Cardiff supports 230k jobs there are still over 400k elsewhere in the Cardiff Capital Region. However, as Prof Calvin Jones has oft said, looking at GDP/capita or GVA/capita only really has meaning when you look at travel to work areas or city regions; it’s not very helpful at local authority level. The WIMD and GDHI data set out earlier (See Context and data that will shape future projects) also demonstrates that Cardiff performs less well than a number of local authorities in Wales.

I also assert, there is no “wealth extraction” from the valleys into Cardiff; it is just that those locations in Cardiff that support regional employment do so because of demographics and being the most accessible location for the most people in SE Wales. In fact, compared to other UK city regions, commuting into the “centre” is lower in SE Wales than many other places. Cardiff has a lot going for it, but it’s not the Emerald City.

Furthermore, Cardiff has received very little Welsh Government (WG) capital investment in transport infrastructure in the last 20 years. Just look at some recent and current road schemes in Wales [44]: probably nearly £1Bn to complete the Heads of The Valleys Rd through RCT, Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent, the Caernarfon by-pass £135M, Newtown By-pass £100M, etc. In fact, very little in Cardiff apart from the £50M for a section of the PDR in 2016. Even the current now £1Bn phase of the South Wales Metro is much more focused on RCT, Caerphilly and Merthyr which are likely to secure some agglomeration benefits. These could be enhanced with more cross-valley connectivity for example between Blackwood, Bargoed and Pontllanfraith with Pontypridd (See 15.5 Cardiff, the Cardiff Capital Region and Crossrail).

Yes the BBC and HMRC Tax Offices have been re-located to Cardiff city centre, but these were mainly jobs (about 4000 out total of 700,000 across SE Wales) that were already in Cardiff which are now better located in the city centre and so accessible to more people across the region, now with the option of using public transport (Llandaf and Llanishen were predominantly car-based locations). I don’t take seriously the suggestion that the BBC or the HMRC could have effectively been based in Ebbw Vale of Machynlleth. Some functions are suited to those locations, but not these.

I have also read some of the work of Fothergill and Beaty[45] re agglomeration. There is much to support in that work and whilst I agree there may not be much difference in individual efficiency across the UK, it is clear to me the wider benefits of agglomeration based on density and accessibility are still real and should not be dismissed lightly. Of course, if you adjust for the factors (e.g., occupation and industry mix, commuting, etc) that relate to agglomeration benefits then the phenomenon diminishes. I still look to Rice and Venables[46] and their assessment of agglomeration benefits associated with density.

Remember, causation is not correlation. Those pointing at the apparent “success” of Cardiff as “suggested” by its GVA/head (which as stated above is not a useful measure at scales smaller than city regions) and then correlating the in-commuting to Cardiff and “agglomeration” to the economic issues facing the whole region are not properly assessing all the contributory factors.

As set out earlier in 4.9 The Metro Impact Study (2013) and 10.5 The development impact of cars and induced demand, after the collapse of local, employment intensive heavy industry, the biggest negative influence on many of our city and town high streets has been the huge relocation of office, retail, public services, etc to car based “out of town” locations in the last 50 years. We need to relocate at least some of our stuff back to town and city centres and other PT connected places and reduce our car dependency. Metro presents an opportunity to begin to do just that, if we really embrace transit Oriented Development (See Why we need Transit Oriented Development).

In summary, I think Cardiff has a vital role to play in further shaping the sustainable economic development of Wales and in leading the way re: public transport and active travel to reduce out car dependency. There are also many economic development, transit-oriented development, and regeneration opportunities linked to further investment in public transport, especially the Cardiff Crossrail. In fact, the full form of Cardiff Crossrail has the potential to enable the largest mode shift to PT of any scheme in Wales and so enable a wider range of benefits.

I also think it is vitally important to ensure places like Pontypridd, Newport, Merthyr, Barry, Bridgend and Pontypool are supported with appropriate and complementary town/transit focussed regeneration and economic development initiatives. In fact, post Covid and using the TOD approach, we can actively work to support agglomeration benefits at a range of scales in/around all our Metro stations across the network in the CCR. This is an area a “Metro Development Corporation” ought to play a role and should in my view focus on housing and local high streets.

14.6 Making better use of existing rail assets

I think there is a unique opportunity in Cardiff and the wider Cardiff Capital Region to make much better use of its existing and underutilised rail infrastructure. Even after the current contracted phase of Metro is delivered only 2tph are proposed for the Ebbw Valley line, City Line and Coryton Lines, 1tph for the Maesteg Lines and there are some freight only lines with no passenger services at all – most notably beyond Ystrad Mynach to Nelson/Treharris, the Machen freight line, across Cardiff docks and from Machen to Newport. There are also some key rail bottlenecks which impact the desire for more services – most notable are the Ebbw Valley junction with the SWML, Cardiff West Junction (which is a constraint on more CVL services on the City Line) and the two-track section of the SWML between Cardiff and Bridgend.

Figure 196 City Link Light Rail Tram-train “Metro Vehicles”

By enhancing and better utilising the various under-used rail lines and addressing the known bottlenecks there is an opportunity to deliver a high quality, high-capacity and frequent urban transit network across much of the Cardiff Capital Region not benefiting from the current phase of the Metro; some of these using the tram-train capability being developed for the CVL. This will also provide more opportunities for rail/bus integration.

We also need to avoid spending scarce capital on new HR infrastructure if that results in adding poorly utilised rail infrastructure to an already strained system. I think this is true of the proposals for the Carmarthen-Aberystwyth Line reopening. Where new rail infrastructure can add most value is where it can enable much greater utilisation of the existing network; so much better to focus on Bangor-Caernarfon-Porthmadog using a LR format in my view, which could improve utilisation of the Cambrian and NWML (See 15.9 Rail innovation in northwest Wales and 15.10 South Wales to north Wales, Liverpool & Manchester).

This is also true, for example, of Crossrail Phase 1a, Phase 2 and the Cardiff West Junction measures in development (See – Immediate priorities for Cardiff: Crossrail phase 2 to 2028/9). If Crossrail Phase 1a were only about an 800m section of tramway from Cardiff Central to the Bay line, some of the current criticism re its benefits would be justified. However, that critique fails to recognise the much wider network benefits of that scheme when combined with Crossrail Phase 2 (especially station link to connect Crossrail to the west) and the Cardiff West Junction enhancement. Collectively, these interventions will allow some CVL Metro tram-train services to route from the Valley Lines via the City Line and Cardiff Central to Cardiff Bay (avoiding Intersection Bridge and an already congested Queen St – a problem exacerbated in my view by choices made during procurement See 5.7 Some technical insight re Light Rail and working assumptions, 5.8 A developing Metro vision and growing frustrations and Buying and building a Metro 2016-2024). In so doing, this will provide major capacity, reliability and redundancy benefits to entire existing CVL network. It’s a pity that business case development has been so fragmented which sometimes fails to properly appraise these wider strategic and network benefits. One might also say the associated comms has suffered in a similar manner.

It’s not just Cardiff; in Swansea Bay, the glaring example of the completely underutilised Swansea District Line (SDL) cannot be overlooked (See 15.6 Swansea Bay and west Wales ).

It is also worth noting these statements from the Wales Transport Strategy in respect of existing infrastructure:

…“continue to make best use of existing transport infrastructure by maintaining it and managing it effectively and efficiently.

upgrade our existing infrastructure to meet our legal obligations on accessibility and safety and to address issues such as congestion

adapt our infrastructure to support modal shift

we will continue to make best use of existing transport infrastructure by maintaining and managing it well.

we will make better use of existing infrastructure in order to reduce waste associated with transport”…

If you were running a manufacturing business these collectively might equate to the often used “Return on Capital Employed” (ROCE) and is a metric perhaps that should be used more widely in the transport industry.

This is the kind of approach adopted in developing most of the UK’s modern Light Rail (LR) systems – they were all predominantly based on the use of existing and underutilised rail infrastructure with, in some cases, new relatively short alignments to connect up existing rail assets. Such systems also maximise the opportunity to minimise unit costs of new “LR” services. This is perhaps more of a constraint in Cardiff given earlier decisions.

It also seems to me that some people have failed to see the benefits of the new tram-train LRVs Figure 196 being introduced by TfW. It’s not just their capacity for “on-street” segregated operation (which is always more preferable than mixing with other road users as I set out in 12.4 Public transport grids, networks and segregation). More importantly, it is their ability to operate on tighter radii, steeper elevations and to tramway standards, which presents a range of new alignment and route options that just would not be possible using traditional Heavy Rail (HR). This is true of Crossrail Phase 1 and 2. The capital costs of such are also likely to be significantly lower than an equivalent “new build” HR.

Back to: 13 The Rail Industry Wales and HS2

Navigation

Next page: 15 The priority transport schemes in Wales to 2040

References

[1] Welsh Government, 2019 “A-railway-for-Wales-the-case-for-devolution”

[2] Welsh Government, 2020, mainline-railway-enhancement-requirements.pdf (gov.wales)

[3] Prof Barry, Welsh Government, 2018 ,The Rail Network in Wales – The Case for Investment

[4] Lord Burns, South East Wales Transport Commission, Final Report 2020 South East Wales Transport Commission: final recommendations | GOV.WALES

[5] Lord Burns, North Wales Transport Commission, Final Report, Dec 2023, North Wales Transport Commission

[6] Sir Peter Hendy, UK Government, Union Connectivity Review, 2021, Union connectivity review: final report – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[7] Welsh Government, 2021, Llwybr Newydd: the Wales transport strategy 2021 | GOV.WALES

[8] Welsh Government, 2021, Net Zero Wales | GOV.WALES

[9] Gary Fuller, Stav Friedman and Ian Mudway; Environmental Research Group, Imperial College London; 2023; Impacts of air pollution across the life course – evidence highlight note (london.gov.uk)

[10] Cardiff Councils 2020 Transport White Paper cardiff.gov.uk/ENG/resident/Parking-roads-and-travel/transport-policies-plans/transport-white-paper/Documents/White Paper for Cardiff Transport 2019.pdf has set out ambitious mode share targets of 33% PT, 43% AT and 25% car

[11] Senedd, Record of Proceedings, Plenary 20/10/2021 – Welsh Parliament (assembly.wales)

[12] Transport for Wales, Metro | Transport for Wales (tfw.wales)

[13] M Barry, 2022, Wales’s Metros – Update Feb 2022

[14] M Barry, CCR Passenger Rail Vision, 2021 CCR passenger-rail-vision-final

[15] M Barry, A Cardiff Crossrail…

[16] Cardiff Council 2019 White Paper for Cardiff Transport 2019.pdf

[17] Duncan Smith, UCL, LuminoCity3D – Urban Data Visualisations by Duncan Smith

[18] Stats Wales, Population Estimates, Population estimates by local authority and year (gov.wales)

[19] Stats Wales, GVA, Gross Value Added by measure, Welsh economic region and year (gov.wales)

[20] Stats Wales, GDHI, Gross Disposable Household Income (UK=100) by area and year (gov.wales)

[21] Stats Wales, Welsh Index Multiple Deprivation, WIMD Local Authority Analysis (gov.wales);

[22] City Population 2023, United Kingdom: Countries, Counties, Districts, Wards, Parishes, Cities and Conurbations – Population Statistics in Maps and Charts (citypopulation.de)

[23] Note the distinction between population data sets: Local authority – based on administrative boundaries only, Built Up Ares an ONS definition tightly restricted to areas of urban development; Agglomerations – a definition that can combine multiple closely associated urban areas and the “undeveloped” space between/around them Other geographies – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) City Population – Glossary

[24] Agglomerations (United Kingdom): Agglomerations – Population Statistics, Charts and Map (citypopulation.de)

[25] Kate Raworth, Cornerstone, 2018 “Doughnut Economics : Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist”, Kate Raworth | Doughnut Economics

[26] Rethinking Economics, About Us – Rethinking Economics (rethinkeconomics.org)

[27] The decoupling of economic growth from carbon emissions: UK evidence – Office for National Statistics

[28] UK Gov 2021 Union connectivity review: final report – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[29] UK Government DfT, 206 “Eddington Transport Study”, [ARCHIVED CONTENT] UK Government Web Archive – The National Archives

[30] Welsh Government, Final Budget 2023 to 2024 | GOV.WALES

[31] DfT Transport data

[32] ORR, Rail infrastructure and assets | ORR Data Portal

[33] Stats Wales, Outturn, Outturn (gov.wales)

[34] HMT Country and Regional Analysis, Country and regional analysis: 2022 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[35] TfW KPI Data, Performance | TfW