Future South Wales Metro, Cardiff Crossrail & Metros across Wales

Back to: 14 Some context and data that will shape future projects

Next page: 16 How do we make that happen?

Over the period 2020-2024, Transport for Wales’s Planning and Development Directorate started to develop and set out a range of possible future strategic public transport projects across Wales. This was done in partnership with local stakeholders and will shape the upcoming Regional Transport Plans in development via the Corporate Joint Committees across Wales.

I helped that Metro development process and below have augmented that work with further ideas of my own, some of which go back to my first Metro report in 2011. As set out below, there is no shortage of good transport plans emerging that will collectively help us deliver the mode shift required by Net Zero Wales (NZW) and support economic development and regeneration; we just need to find a way of funding, delivering and operating it.

In this chapter I cover:

15.1 Planning for the future

From 2020-24 TfW led the strategic development of Metros and major regional public transport schemes (rail and bus) across Wales. This is a capability I helped TfW establish over that period. The work was undertaken by a number of very capable and committed transport planning professionals (See Transport Planning and choices) via a number of formal development programmes within TfW’s Planning and Development Directorate led by Geoff Ogden. Welsh Government and its key transport officials took the decision in 2020 to remit TfW to develop this capability, both to address a strategic gap in regional transport planning and to address the lack of focus by DfT and NR in respect of potential rail enhancement schemes in Wales. Building on that work, from 2024 the emerging Combined Joint Committee (CJCs) in Wales will fulfil a regional role in determining transport priorities across Wales. To support the regions, TfW, in late 2023 expanded Lee Robinson’s role to cover the development of regional transport plans in 2024/25 as well as leading on the Bus Reform and franchising agenda.

The primary considerations in developing and curating future plans, are our Net Zero Wales mode shift targets and noting that pre-Covid, cars trips made up 80% of commuting mode share and perhaps 70% of overall trips. This indicates that there is clearly a large untapped market for public transport (PT) in Wales; we just need a better product able to attract the vast majority of people who still have to and/or choose to use their cars, onto public transport or to use Active Travel(AT). The ex-Transport Minister Lee Waters covered some of the challenges, and opportunities, in a speech earlier in 2024 on the subject of TfW 2.0[1].

To be clear, this business case and scheme development work is distinct from the actual operational and implementation activities related to current contracted work as part of the ongoing Wales and Borders franchise and South Wales Metro implementation programme[2]. The more engineering and operations focussed effort related to the South Wales Metro is another story entirely and merits another book.

15.2 Benefits of public transport

Too often in my view, Transport planning and the processes wrapped around it over emphasize the definition of “the transport problem” and the issues to be addressed (as set out earlier). Yes, this is useful starting point. However, I think it is also important to set out a vision, the opportunity, and the benefits that follow from them. I did cover some “vision” statements earlier in Why Metro…and developing a Metro Vision? It is also how I approached the The Metro Impact Study (2013). Given the scale of the proposals set out below, I also think it helps to set out some of the generic benefits:

More people on buses or trains will help us reduce car use and move us toward a much lower car mode share by 2040 as set out in Net Zero Wales (NZW). This will play a big part in reducing our carbon emissions given that cars are currently 10~13% of total emissions
This reduction in car use will result in fewer road traffic accidents (RTA) which currently across the UK costs £18Bn each year[3](through direct cost of police, emergency services, hospital beds as well having economic costs, etc). The reduction in the cost of delivering health services is I think a material consideration. (To note: unreported costs of RTAs take this to over £40Bn according to DfT figures)
Fewer cars on the road will also reduce the estimated 30,000 premature deaths per year[4] resulting from poor air quality. Again, this will result in reducing the burden on the healthcare system. Worth noting that air quality is not just about tail pipe emissions from diesel or petrol engines; wear and tear of brakes and tyres resulting in plastic particulates in the environment is actually a bigger problem[5] (which EVs don’t solve)
Similarly, more people adopting Active Travel (AT) – so walking/cycling – also has long term health benefits[6] and in the longer term will reduce costs burden on Heath departments. It also reduces wear and tear on our roads. So, people choosing to walk or cycle are saving us all money
More people using public transport will also improve the operational efficiency of public transport services as trains and buses should be fuller more of the time, so reducing operational costs per passenger
Often overlooked by those opposed to the more PT/AT, is the reality that such mode shift will also enable our current road network to operate more efficiently with less congestion, so helping realise the economic benefits anticipated for new roads that are often compromised through induced demand. It will also result in less wear and tear on our existing roads that will reduce the prevalence and costs to address, of potholes on the road network
More public transport can be aligned to more densified development around our public transport network and reduce the need to travel using a car – so called “Transit Oriented Development” (See Why we need Transit Oriented Development (TOD)). As we are now recognising, for 50 years our planning system has enabled huge amounts of low-density car dependant sprawl of homes, offices and retail locking in car dependency
Whilst some will seek to dismiss it, it is also important that we can secure the agglomeration benefits of improved public transport connectivity and the increase in net effective density of our urban areas. Such benefits can be as much as 10-20% of conventional user benefits[7].

All these benefits are shaping strategic transport planning across Wales, and especially at TfW.

15.3 Mark Barry’s transport planning

What follows below, is my attempt, after 15 years working in this area, at taking what information is available to me and doing all this “in my head”. Now that sounds ludicrous and maybe even a little arrogant. However, having had an interest in this subject my whole life, a pretty good spatial awareness (of geography, demography, etc), constantly updating my “data” with new information from people, conversations, reports (public and private), processing multiple influencing factors and a weird ability to see patterns and connections where others often don’t, and having worked with this data for over ten years, I assert I am more often right than wrong.

Suggestions that I may have some neuro divergence in my thinking, behaviours, etc have followed me my whole life, from both those who know me and some I have worked with. I am also aware that people sometimes feel I offer my opinions on certain transport issues, based on what they consider, is too little data/information; I suspect often because they don’t see the problem, or even the question, in the same way I do. Perhaps I manifest a little of Malcolm Gladwell’s “thin slicing”[8]? Conversely, I can’t always do the formal fine grain details as I am not really interested, but at a larger spatial scale and subconsciously processing many factors, I generally kind of see what works (most of the time). After a degree in Physics, I spent my early career in complex systems and software design, then 5 years as a management consultant handling complex multi-facetted projects and then started and was CEO of a biotechnology start up. I am therefore used to dealing with complexity and uncertainty, and making decisions in that context. In software development terms I am a better systems architect than a programme coder, although I have done both.

So, I really struggle with the idea of reopening the Carmarthen – Aberystwyth railway line; in HR terms it’s a £1Bn+ project; even with a Light Rail format (see below) it’s still well over £0.5Bn of capital investment to serve a very small market (probably less aggregate demand than the Coryton or City Lines in Cardiff). Clearly, the Traws Link Cymru[9] team have done an amazing job to promote this scheme; however, I much prefer the Bangor-Caernarfon-Porthmadog “lighter rail” option (See 15.9 Rail innovation in northwest Wales). I similarly struggle with the idea of reopening the Cwmbargoed line (now not used following the closure of the open cast mine) beyond Nelson/Trelewis; it’s another 10km of railway beyond that point through a pretty much deserted valley apart from about 2k people in Bedlinog, who can be more cost effectively served with bus.

Elsewhere in north Wales, I want us to get on with integrating Borderlands with Merseyrail (See 15.7 North Wales). Similarly, I really want to see the full Cardiff Crossrail, NW Corridor to RCT and Circle, as this scheme, and phases thereof, has the biggest mode shift demand potential of all those under consideration in Wales (See – Full Cardiff Crossrail from 2028 into the 2030s). The failure to deliver 4tph on the City line and Coryton line in Cardiff is a glaring omission in the current South Wales Metro programme (See – Immediate priorities for Cardiff: Crossrail phase 2 to 2028/9). Despite limited support to date, in the longer term, I am keen on something more ambitious for Merthyr, cross valley and Newport. Finally, I never did and still don’t like the idea of a Felindre West Wales Parkway in Swansea – any West Wales Parkway has to be at Carmarthen with Felindre being a local stop on a much-needed Swansea Bay Metro (See 15.6 Swansea Bay and west Wales). Self-evidently, both the SWML and NWML need an upgrade. Wrapped around all of this we need more bus lanes, more Active Travel and multi modal PAYG fares.

Despite my assertions, one also has to acknowledge that over the last fifteen years, just in southeast Wales, we have asked the “what do we need and why?” questions quite a lot. Including my work and items never published (and ignoring more focussed studies for specific schemes e.g., the Ebbw Valley rail studies), I can recall at a strategic scale:

2011 A Metro for Wales Capital City Region
2013 SEWTA Rail Strategy
2013 South East Wales Integrated Transport Task Force
2013 A Cardiff City Region Metro
2013 A Cardiff Capital Region Metro: Impact Study
2014 Internal WG work including Metro Strategic Implementation Plan
2015 Cardiff Capital Region Board – Powering the Welsh Economy
2015 Rolling out our Metro
2017 WG Metro Services Requirements
2018 Metro and Me
2020 CCC Transport White Paper
2020 South East Wales Transport Commission
2021 CCR Passenger Rail vision
2021 Union Connectivity Review (re SWML)
2023 Western Gateway 2050 Rail Vision
2020-2023 TfW led work: CCR Metro Enhancement Framework studies, CCR Programme Strategic Outline Case, Burns Unit Work

I led and/or was involved and/or contributed to all but two of the above, and the two I wasn’t, were influenced, at least in part, by my work. On that basis, I have absorbed a lot of information and data, had plenty of “groundhog day” discussions, and have been in multiple appraisal sessions covering the same subject matter over the last fifteen years. So, we/I really ought to know what we want; it seems the questions now, are, “how much, who pays and when?” in respect of building and operating all this stuff.

In truth there will never be enough money, so we have to focus on programmes that secure the maximum support and maximum funding. As the ex-Mayor of Vancouver[10] once told me, it is easy to disagree; however, it is much more productive to focus on where you agree, as you will run out of money before you run out of agreement.

However, I would caveat that, as before one reaches an agreement there is a key step I think is essential to achieving the best outcome. A deliberate tactic I have often employed to do this, is to add a little tension to a situation. I know sometimes this can be irritating to others to say the least, but let me explain why, as I am no fan of cosy consensus.

When I was in the “raising equity funding for my biotech start up” phase of my career, it took me a few funding rounds to learn a key lesson. If everyone is smiling and happy after a agreeing a deal, then at least one party, probably unknowingly, has been short changed (and that was often me!) and/or that deal will fall apart before closing. It seems to me that the best deals and outcomes are only achieved once everyone involved has shared some emotion and, in many cases, disagreed robustly or even lost tempers. This process takes several iterations to get to the “best deal”.

Taking that lesson and applying it to transport planning, I have sometimes, either in face-to-face meetings or in emails and blogs, dogmatically introduced ideas or suggestions which I know will irritate or even annoy some parties. I do this not with deliberate antagonism as my primary objective, but to try and get those individuals involved to properly consider the issues at hand and challenge any assumptions they may hold in supporting their views. This for me helps ensure that whatever agreement is ultimately reached, is more likely to be the best outcome (or the least bad!). A little like the “if it can’t be done, show me why it can’t be done” I described earlier (See 5.9 Show me it can’t be done).

As an example, someone from NR once suggested to me that I had been unhelpful in one of my public interventions, but after I explained my approach, acknowledged the value in my provocation to try and get all parties to thoroughly examine an issue before reaching a conclusion. In my experience this is often an essential pre-condition for constructive progress. Let me say this again, if after a first meeting on a contentious issue everyone seems to amicably agree with an outcome, it almost certainly isn’t the best outcome.

15.4 My proposals… to 2040

Based on my transport planning approach, the above benefits, the details set out in Some context and data that will shape future projects, the theoretical context set out in Transport Planning and choices and based on my work and that of many others (including WG and TfW) over the last 15 years, I have set out a summary of what I consider the priority strategic public transport projects across Wales out into the late 2030s.

I won’t cover all the details here ( I have published plenty of blogs on these matters over the last few years[11] and in formal documents like the CCR Rail Passenger Vision which I prepared in 2021), I just want to paint a picture of the possible from scheme details that are publicly available, will be in the next few years or ought to be developed over the next 5~15 years if we are ambitious enough. I focus on Cardiff and CCR given that is the main subject of this Metro story. Building on the data presented in earlier chapters I hope this is a useful resource for Transport for Wales, Welsh Government, Cardiff Council and the Cardiff Capital Region; especially given the upcoming development of a Regional Transport Plan. However I have been involved in work all over Wales, so I do set out the priority schemes and opportunities elsewhere in Wales.

I also want to emphasise that this not just about a capital programme. It’s about the urgent need to decarbonise and exploit the very significant economic and regeneration benefits that are associated with these proposals. For example, the Western Gateway identified £30Bn of economic benefits[12] associated with the delivery of its long-term vision to 2050 and the more immediate need to upgrade the SWML and links between south Wales and southwest England. In 2019 my Case for Investment for WG found approx. £2.5 Bn of L1 Transport User and agglomeration benefits associated with the schemes assessed. Welsh Government also assessed at a high level the potential economic benefits of some of its priority schemes across Wales in 2022, which based on a focussed list of immediate priorities amounted to over £2Bn in additional economic benefits. That information ought to see the light of day at some point.

A final consideration, and something we must avoid. We must not make this about rail v bus. The opportunity we must embrace is to create effective, attractive and integrated public transport networks of rail, bus and active travel. Rail services, especially in urban areas, are the arteries of these systems and local bus services more often the capillaries. This is the primary challenge facing Transport for Wales, how to build an organisation that can act as a systems integrator and not just as a rail operator.

15.5 Cardiff, the Cardiff Capital Region & Crossrail

Figure 197 CCR Metro: Concept for strategic routes (local bus, Traws Cymru & AT not shown)

The Cardiff Capital Region (CCR) is home to nearly 1.6M people (half of Wales’s population), covering a diverse and unique geography from coast to valley to mountain; a history that encompasses the crucible of the industrial revolution, the world’s first steam railway in 1804, an industry that fuelled the world in the 19th and early 20th Centuries and the foundation of the NHS. It now supports a modern diverse multicultural society drawn from all parts of the world.

Cardiff is at its core with a population of 380k more densely packed than anywhere else in Wales (over 4,000 people per Km²in the urban area). As I set out in 6.3 The Keolis Amey solution for Core Valley Lines, the Core Valley Lines (CVL) Transformation is a £1Bn+ investment that will deliver “turn up and go” Metro services that will essentially double the capacity of the valley line network, reduce journey times and provide a real alternative to car use across much of the Cardiff Capital Region. In addition, the announcement of funding early in 2023, will enable the first phase 1a of the Cardiff Crossrail between Cardiff Central and the Bay Line and hopefully phase 1b onto Pierhead St, to be delivered.

I also set out some omissions and issues in 6.5 Gaps & so still work to do… that need to be addressed in future phases that can begin to redefine the CCR Figure 197. More especially to address the Metro omissions in Cardiff itself and to provide the foundation for the full Cardiff Crossrail[13] and a more reliable and higher capacity CVL network.

In doing so, there is an opportunity (or even an obligation) to make much better use of the currently poorly used rail infrastructure (See 14.6 Making better use of existing rail assets), especially in Cardiff. For example, some double tracking, short new connections and grade separation, can address the Cardiff West Junction capacity issue, connect Radyr and Coryton and link City line via Central to the Bay line and onto the freight line corridor in Splott.

This could create a 21^st Century “necklace of opportunity” in Cardiff (a phrase originally used by the late Ewart Parkinson Director of Planning for South Glamorgan to describe the Southern Distributor Road in Cardiff in the 1970s). This “necklace” constitutes a 20km high frequency, segregated, urban transit system to augment the current CVL. It would connect over 20 stations linked to major residential locations, public services, visitor attractors, the bay & city centre, and development opportunities across the city. Operating at 6tph this could move 2,500 people an hour in each direction and so commensurate with the local demand and mode shift targets we have. This is just not possible or practical with bus, as one would need 35 buses an hour to carry the same number of people on already congested roads. Buses in Cardiff ultimately need to perform more of a capillary feeder function from places in the city with no rail. A rail-based transit system like this built from new would cost well over £2Bn but given the existing underutilised rail infrastructure already in place, this could be delivered for much less than half of that. Some of this via “Crossrail Phase 1” is already in development, which has to be seen as the enabler of the larger Crossrail vision.

Aside from Cardiff, there are longer term opportunities to leverage tram-train capability to: connect Caerphilly to Newport and using on street section in Newport to avoid the SWML; diverting and extending north along the river corridor in Merthyr toward Cyfarthfa Castle; connecting Quakers Yard to Nelson and onto Blackwood as part of a cross-valley service; and even perhaps one day a link from the Marches line actually into Pontypool.

Building on this core Metro rail network the bigger challenge perhaps is to redesign and integrate our bus networks (See Transport Planning and choices and 15.11 Bus services, networks and integration) so the passenger experiences a single multi modal network across the entire Cardiff Capital Region.

Immediate priorities for Cardiff: Crossrail phase 2 to 2028/9

Figure 198 Metro Priorities for Cardiff: Crossrail Phase 2

Crossrail Phase 2 Interventions

There is a strategic package of CVL measures emerging to augment the current programme due to be completed in 2026. For Cardiff these can collectively be described as Crossrail Phase 2 Figure 198 and should be delivered by 2028/9. They include:

Address “gaps” in current CVL plans, especially ensuring a minimum of 4tph on the City and Coryton Lines. These require urgent tactical measures at Cardiff West Junction (See Mark Barry Email to UK Gov Transport Ministers WG CabSec July 2024) and a passing loop on the Coryton Line (See 12.5 Service frequency for an explanation)
Network/service simplification of the CVL into 4tph service groups to improve passenger legibility and operational flexibility/efficiency and reduce performance risks. This requires a focus on developing good interchanges that enable, rather than inhibit multi-leg trips (See 12.7 Network legibility & simplicity for an explanation)
Crossrail Phase 1a See Figure 199 Figure 200 from Central to the Bay Line and Phase 1b from the current Bay station to Pierhead St – this delivers the long-awaited direct connection between Cardiff Central and the Bay and provides the foundation for the larger Crossrail scheme to connect to the west of the city. This section is much more than just 800m of new tramway and is made possible because of the application of tram-train technology
The Crossrail work also needs to include the long overdue urban realm upgrade of the Bute St / Lloyd George Avenue Corridor. Ideally the western carriageway of LGA is closed and repurposed as public space (park, active travel) with some appropriate development along the route to “punctuate” the new urban park (as I set out in my 2011 report and the 2013 Metro Impact Study). Lessons from Vancouver and the Arbutus Greenway project[14] may help
As part of Crossrail Phase 2, the Station Link (“Ramp”) connection at Central to enable City Line services to route via Crossrail to Cardiff Bay. In the first instance this will connect Crossrail to the west of the city and enable some services from the HoV to route to the bay from the City Line via Central – so avoiding Queen St
The station link, when added to Crossrail Phase 1, performs a function similar to Metrolink’s 2^nd City Crossing and will enable a more balanced, less operationally constrained network with more network capacity, reliability, redundancy and recoverability. Future services could operate via this link from Penarth (subject to electrification and tram-train operation) and the NW Corridor (subject to further capacity measures at Cardiff West Junction)
Further performance, reliability and recoverability measures (e.g., more double tracking and electrification)

There are also real opportunities for a number of new CVL stations (in addition to Crwys Rd and Butetown) with significant catchment populations, that serve major trip generators and/or have interchange/ integration potential. These include: Roath Park, Ely Mill, Gabalfa, Cogan, Grangetown Gas Works, as well as new SWML stations at Cardiff East and Parkway (and eventually Rumney). As set out later, outside Cardiff we ought to consider Nantgarw & Pontypridd Bus Station on the CVL.

PS Jan 2025 – I covered Crossrail Phase 2 in a blog in January 2025

Crossrail Phase 2 Benefits

Collectively, these measures will enable/deliver a range of strategic benefits, including:

An easier to understand and use CVL network that can attract more people (est 25M~30M PAX per year so comparable to the Tyne and Wear Metro which has broadly the same catchment population as the CVL), operate more reliably and with limited need for additional OPEX Figure 201
This increased PAX will constitute a significant mode shift and carbon reduction measure
More CVL network capacity, resilience and redundancy – especially an alternative route to the bay from the valleys avoiding Queen St and Intersection Bridge over the SWML
Reduction in the overall subsidy and subsidy per passenger by better matching capacity to demand across the network
Much better utilisation of rail infrastructure in Cardiff – something required by the Wales Transport Strategy
Enable much more effective bus/rail integration across Cardiff; aside from Cardiff Central and Queen St this will include interchanges at places like Birchgrove, Waungron, Cardiff Bay, Gabalfa, etc
Enable more platform capacity for South Wales Mainline (SWML) services at Cardiff Central by routing more CVL tram-train services via the new Crossrail platforms. There really is no other way to enhance the platform capacity at Central given the space constraints
Support and enhance development and regeneration at key locations around the network in Cardiff and across the valleys; especially Cardiff Central and the Bay, but also Cardiff East, Ely Mill, Roath Park, Parkway, Grange Gasworks, etc and outside Cardiff at places like Trefforest Industrial Estate, Pontypridd (including a new station at Pontypridd north)
Provide the foundation for further expansion of Metro services and capacity into the 2030s.

Figure 199 Credit CCC/TfW/The Urbanists Sep 2024 – Crossrail Phase 1a Callaghan Sq #1[12]

Figure 200 Credit CCC/TfW/ The Urbanists Sep 2024 – Crossrail Phase 1a Callaghan Sq #2

Figure 201 Simplified CVL service with Crossrail Phase 1&2 (other variants possible)

Wider Metro rail measures to 2028/30

Outside the core schemes above we also need to deliver:

Maesteg frequency (to 2tph) – this is a long-standing omission which I am sure the ex-Leader of Bridgend Council Huw David, and MS Huw Irranca Davies are tired of requesting
The Aberdare-Hirwaun extension. This can enable a Metro station at “Porth i’r Bannau” as well as supporting connectivity to one of the CCR’s most remote communities. A Hirwaun station should be a bus interchange for services into the Bannau Brycheiniog national park (like the Sherpa in Eryri) as well a P&R for the A645 Heads of the Valleys Rd
Ebbw Valley (4tph) and perhaps the spur to Abertillery (although this could probably be more cost effectively served by a more strategic integrated bus service); 2tph to Ebbw Vale and 2tph to Abertillery, with some services routing to Cardiff and others via Newport to the Marches line and Abergavenny
Marches line upgrade (inc. turnback at Abergavenny) to support new dedicated local Metro services, probably as an extension of new Ebbw Valley- Newport services and new stations, especially at Caerleon.

Complementary bus and integration measures to 2028

To complement and add further value to these interventions, and integrated with the Bus Reform, bus franchising and network redesign programme, we also need:

Full rail/bus multimodal fares and tickets, and capped multi-modal PAYG – this is fundamental to the entire Metro concept and necessary to properly enable bus network redesign and rail/bus integration
As important, irrespective of the timing of bus reform, we also need to properly integrate rail and bus services to present the passenger a single PT network. In urban areas (esp. Cardiff) we need to deliver major bus prioritisation measures (so more bus lanes) and bus network redesign (so Cardiff Bus, Newport Bus, NAT, Stagecoach, etc) to more overtly integrate with rail services. This will also require new/relocated bus stops and improved rail/bus and bus/bus interchanges[16]
This is the opportunity to design and implement a more efficient “grid” like network of rail and bus services (See 12.4 Public transport grids, networks and segregation), especially in Cardiff. We can look back to the success of the Newcastle Metro in the early 1980s which is perhaps the only time in the UK outside London, that passengers have experienced a properly integrated rail and bus Metro system (See 2.4 Is Newcastle the best example of a UK Metro?)
Also See 15.11 Bus services, networks and integration.

Full Cardiff Crossrail from 2028 into the 2030s

Figure 202 Illustration of full Cardiff Crossrail concept

Into the 2030s, and building on the interventions set out above (Crossrail Phase 1a & 1b, Crossrail Phase 2: 4tph on City& Coryton lines, Station link and additional stations) we need to undertake the phased implementation of the full Cardiff Crossrail Figure 202. Operating at 4-6 tph this “necklace of opportunity scheme” will help deliver perhaps the biggest mode shift in Wales in absolute numbers, as well as unlocking a number of major development and regeneration opportunities:

Radyr/Coryton circle line connection to serve the very significant trips E-W across the north of Cardiff which are currently poorly served by PT and so overwhelmingly car based as well as connecting many Origin/Destination (O/D) points beyond the connection itself given it provides a vital link in our wider PT grid. The connection will also enhance economic development and sustainable access in/around and to/from the Life Science Park at Forest Farm and the new Velindre Hospital
Extension across the docks from Pierhead Street to Newport Rd and a new Cardiff East (Tremorfa) station on the SWML at Newport Rd, which aside from serving some of the region’s most deprived communities[17], can when linked to medium/longer term interventions at Roath Dock, Ocean Park , etc support more regeneration, economic development and new housing
Install OLE on the Penarth branch (and/or flash charging at Penarth) to enable operation of Tram-trains to Penarth and integration with Crossrail services via the ramp (station link).

Whilst expensive, we could potentially divert Penarth services away from Cardiff West Junction (so negating the scale of the major intervention needed at that location to increase capacity) via a new link from the VoG line near the gas works across Grangetown and James St to the bay line near the current Butetown station (This is something explored in the 2013 Metro Impact Study Figure 203 ). An alternate route from Grangetown station along Penarth Rd. into Cardiff city centre may also be possible
By linking Coryton/Radyr, adding grade separation at Cardiff West Junction and installing OLE to Penarth, a whole range of new service and routing options become available, as well as wider network benefits[18] and more capacity. For example, one could start additional tram-train services at Heath Lower which operate west via the Coryton line, City Line and then to the bay via the Crossrail link (could probably operate 5/6 tph). This could help reduce train paths through Queen St North and/or provide space for new services from the Rhymney Line?
The North West Corridor from the City Line to Pontyclun and Beddau in RCT (including a necessary major upgrade and grade separation at Cardiff West Junction) to provide a vital public transport service on a corridor already seeing extensive new development. This was set out back in the Metro Impact Study in 2013 Figure 204 . This is a scheme that can be explicitly linked to the work of a “Metro Development Corporation” as further development and densification along the corridor will likely be essential to its longer-term viability.

Figure 203 2013 Metro Impact Study – Cardiff Bay and “Crossrail”

Figure 204 2013 Mero Impact Study – Full NW Corridor/Crossrail

Wider CCR and CVL measures into the 2030s

Beyond the essential measures to 2028/30 and the phased implementation of the Cardiff Crossrail into the 2030s, the wider network also can be expanded with some more fundamental changes. These include:

We also need to consider further Metro rail stations on the network where local demand justifies. New stations whilst having non-trivial capital costs, offer the potential, with limited further opex, for generating significant further farebox revenue from a network now with more connected O/D points and so demand elasticities that reflect the network effect (well in excess of 1)
As an interim measure, to avoid further costly network capacity and resilience measures that maybe required to support some new stations, we can also consider skip stopping; with higher frequencies we can still ensure every station gets 4tph
De-designation of the entire CVL network as “non-mainline”. If practical this should extend to the VoG and Penarth branch with a further asset transfer. This will reduce the burden of some ORR and rail industry process and bureaucracy and give TfW more control over network access, management and operations (e.g., timetables)
Address the need for “guards” to be involved in door/despatch operations on Tram-train vehicles designed for Driver Only Operation (DOO). I’d go further, we need to remove the requirement for there to be an additional member of staff on every tram-train service. Without change, the CVL will be the only network operating trams with guards on board involved in door and despatch operations. LR services in Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Croydon, etc operate with just a driver. CVL Metro services can as well, via “roving” customer service staff able to be deployed across the fleet and stations as required.

I am also sensitive to the challenges of addressing antisocial behaviour (ASB) on some valley services, and that we may need a period where PAX builds before we make significant staffing changes. Although an ability to deploy customer service staff more flexibly will surely help. Ultimately, we need to try and get closer to the unit cost enjoyed by other LR system, and more flexible staffing protocols will help.

Given earlier decisions, Metro CVL services will be materially more costly to operate than similar services in places like Manchester, Newcastle and Nottingham. Choices have implications and the necessary service expansion and additional capacity will be relatively more unaffordable unless we make such changes.
Electrification of the VoG Line and SWML from Cardiff to Swansea/Carmarthen
Post Bus reform BRT implementation Cardiff-Newport, in/around Bridgend, some cross valley BRT connections – although some of these may justify development of pure Light Rail Tram schemes
There is a real opportunity to integrate new green active travel routes with new/upgraded tram-train services, so called Greenways. We certainly need to do so along Bute St/LGA, but the concept can be extended across the city[19].

Longer term CCR measures to 2040:

From the mid-2030s I hope we are also considering/progressing:

With tram-train operating on Penarth services the opportunity to extend the Metro to Lower Penarth/Cosmeston becomes a practical possibility
A new connection between Quakers Yard and Trelewis/Nelson (and the existing freight line) to enable Tram-train operations from Pontypridd or Merthyr to Ystrad Mynach and onto the Rhymney Line, and even onto Blackwood. This can also support more development on the Trelewis-Nelson-Ystrad Mynach corridor
Caerphilly-Newport utilising the existing freight line and re-instated section into Caerphilly. In Newport use an “on street” section to Newport City centre avoiding the congested SWML. I actually commissioned a study to assess LR alignments in Newport in 2014
Extension of CVL in Merthyr along river corridor toward Cyfarthfa Retail Park and Cyfarthfa Castle. I suspect this may not be practical now given the retention of the current location of Merthyr station, the option to relocate near the river and adjacent to the bus station was never explored or favoured by the local authority
I also expect some measure in the next twenty years in NE Cardiff where there is no rail infrastructure at present but has both the catchment population and density to support high quality segregated rapid transit. A similar opportunity many present itself to extend tram-train operation along the Cowbridge Rd corridor into Ely (but this will likely be dependent on the major grade separation being delivered at Cardiff West Junction).

15.6 Swansea Bay and west Wales

Figure 205 A Swansea Bay Metro into the 2030s15.6 North Wales

Swansea Bay and West Wales is approximately 700k people, with the dense urban core around Neath, Llanelli and Swansea having about 380k (at 3,000 people per Km²) with the remainder less densely spread across Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. There has been plenty of detailed scheme development undertaken since my Case for Investment proposals for Welsh Government in 2019. These include:

Priority schemes in Swansea Bay

Enhanced local rail services west of Swansea all the way to Milford Haven aligned to a range of tactical infrastructure enhancement – these complement some of the SWML measures set out below. This should include consideration of some additional services that skip Neath and/or Swansea HS to reduce journey times between Cardiff and Carmarthen/points west
Phase 1 of urban rail Metro[20], making better use of SDL/ SWML and providing an additional platform at Swansea High Street, supporting two new Metro services
- Pontarddulais-Llandarcy-Neath-Swansea with 5 or 6 new stations on the SWML and SDL (for example Pontlliw, Morriston, Llandarcy & Landore) and a new curve connection between the SDL and SWML north of Britton Ferry to allow through service from the SDL direct to Swansea
- Bury Port – Swansea High Street (inc. new station at Cockett and turnback at Bury Port)
A range of local bus prioritisation and segregation measures – esp. in the urban areas of Swansea, Neath and Llanelli. This work will be aligned with further optimisation of bus networks and greater integration with enhanced rail services
A range of station and interchange enhancement to support both local development and more effective rail/bus/active travel integration. In particular as a minimum, we need to initiate major TOD projects around Neath, Morriston, Llandarcy, Llanelli, Pontardulais and Swansea High Street stations. At some point the DVLA will relocate – let s put it “on top” one of the region’s major stations, Neath perhaps
In this context Carmarthen to become the “West Wales Parkway” and an interchange between services (rail and bus)

Longer term rail Metro in Swansea Bay

The Metro rail foundation can form the basis of further expansion (using tram-train capability) into the 2030s aligned to complementary planning guidance re land use around transit – for example from Clydach to Llandarcy and onto Jersey Marine, Bay Campus SA1 to City Centre and Swansea High Street and on toward St Helens (the new home of the Ospreys) and Singleton Hospital, and even The Mumbles

15.7 North Wales

Figure 206 Opportunities in northeast Wales

Building on the 2019 Case for Investment, as articulated by Groups like GrowthTrack360 and the Mersey Dee Alliance, reflected in the detailed work of TfW’s North Wales Metro Programme and endorsed by North Wales Transport Commission (NWTC), and as set out in my earlier blogs, we need to:

Enhance the North Wales Main Line (NWML), including line speed upgrades, level crossing removal, new signalling west of Llandudno Junction, etc to enable new all stopper commuter services, and reduced stop express services. Probably implemented via a phased expansion of services with an initial focus on Llandudno-Chester-Crewe
Deliver capacity measures at Chester Station to allow more services to route to NWML from the east
Upgrade the Borderlands line (inc. capacity for 4tph) and integrate with Merseyrail using new Stadler Battery 777s; future option to extend south of Wrexham to serve local stations at Chirk, Gobowen, Ruabon and extend into Oswestry
Implement an interchange upgrade at Shotton Station between NWML and Borderlands Services – plus further stations on the NWML (e.g., Holywell, Broughton)
Electrify the North Wales Main Line – and enable operation of classic compatible HS2 services. To be clear, the above measures are a higher priority than electrification.

15.8 South Wales Main Line (SWML) Corridor

Figure 207 Western Gateway 2050 Rail Vision (Arup 2023)

The cities and city regions of Swansea, Cardiff and Bristol along the SWML corridor cover a population well in excess of 3 million people. It is major contributor to the UK economy but is often overlooked from a UK Government and Whitehall perspective reflected in the relatively poor rail services and infrastructure when compared to the southeast of England.

The rail investment priorities along the SWML corridor are pretty clear and have been presented many times in various forms over the last 15 years by the South East Wales Transport Alliance (SEWTA), my 2011 Metro Report, the Great Western Partnership, my 2013 Metro Impact Study, The South East Wales Transport Commission (SEWTC) and the Union Connectivity Review (UCR). I summarised the requirements in a paper in 2021[21] for the SEWTC – especially the need for more stations and rail services AND integrated local bus services. More recently these requirements have all been reflected in the Western Gateway 2050 Rail vision[22] Figure 207. The priority interventions of what is likely a phased £1-2Bn programme include:

Line speed & capacity improvements to bring the SWML(& relief lines) up to the same capability as the other “mainlines” in the UK (esp. WCML, ECML and GWML)
Additional express and all stopper services, including faster services from Cardiff to Carmarthen (which is the optimal location for a “West Wales Parkway”) and West Wales (Milford Haven), and further Bristol Temple Meads (BTM) to Cardiff services as recommended by Lord Burns’ South East Wales Transport Commission. Some of these additional BTM-Cardiff services could extend to the VoG and be combined with the additional VoG Metro service anticipated
Electrification to Swansea/Carmarthen from Cardiff, and into Bristol Temple Meads; this will help enable all electric rolling stock options on BTM-Swansea services and reduce the costs of the Swansea/Neath Urban area Metro
A number of new stations (as set out by TfW SWML Programme) to support the new all stopper commuter services Figure 208 , including consideration of: Magor, Llanwern, Newport East, Newport West, Cardiff Parkway[23], Rumney, Cardiff East (Tremorfa/Newport Rd/Rover Way); Brackla, Landore and Cockett east of Cardiff
This combination of rail services and stations will deliver the essential public transport backbone across South Wales and are vital to give improved local bus services and BRT in Newport and East Cardiff something to integrate with. They will also complement further enhancements to the South Wales Metro and the introduction of a Metro in Swansea Bay and similar plans in Bristol.

Longer term we will have to consider the provision of an alternative to the Severn Tunnel, perhaps integrated with a future Severn Barrage, as well as perhaps a new/expanded alignment west of Cardiff via Bridgend to Swansea.

Despite the obvious environmental concerns, I also think the wider south Wales and SW England region needs to consider a new single airport location at/near the Severn bridge[24]. One airport replacing two poorly located airports will reduce the number of flights (esp. duplication of services) via fewer bigger planes, with better surface public transport access and so reduce the need to drive to the airport.

Figure 208 SWML “network of alternatives” from TfW 2023 consultation[22]

15.9 Rail innovation in northwest Wales

Figure 209 Rail innovation in northwest Wales

In 2019 I wrote a short blog about a “Metro in northwest Wales[26]”. Whilst the title generated some interest, it wasn’t really about an urban Metro. It was more about the opportunity in places like northwest Wales to deliver rail solutions using a “lighter” rail format than traditional HR. Too often in Wales calls for a re-openings or new schemes fall flat because of HR capital costs, operational costs and topology that constrains route and alignment options, let alone small and low-density population leading to more limited farebox. In fact, much of Wales is ill suited to the standards associated with the NR managed national rail network.

As has been done for High-Speed Rail (which has new dedicated rolling stock and track engineering standards), we perhaps need a different approach and standards for areas of lower population density and more topological constraints. I suspect the DfT Restoring Your Railways (RYR)[27] policy would have been far more successful if it adopted this approach, and perhaps avoided its cancellation by the new UK Labour Government in July 2024[28]. We could learn a lot from places like Switzerland and routes like the Bernina Express[29], which is a fully electrified 150Km narrow gauge railway through the Alps. For me too many of the RYR studies are just feasibility confetti that can be thrown in time for an election.

I actually initiated some further TfW work on this subject in 2020/21 which concluded that:

A long-distance LR format was possible, and was validated by rolling stock manufacturers like Stadler who could deliver in effect a “long distance” tram-train (so more suitable seating, toilets, etc)
The application of a “long distance tram train” provides new routing/alignment options and so could help avoid obstacles that now constrain old, closed HR routes
Any new rail format would still need vehicles capable of operating on traditional HR infrastructure
Capital costs for a lighter format would be lower than equivalent HR, but still high and in many cases a bus solution would still be better value for money

On that basis I think there is an opportunity in the medium/longer term (we do have many higher priorities to progress first) to look again at:

A route connecting Bangor-Caernarfon-Porthmadog with services operating from NWML onto Cambrian Line Figure 209, perhaps extending via new spur to Dolgellau and even the Amlwch line
Possible application on a de-designated (in whole or in part) Conway Valley line, which, using a lighter form could be extended from Blaenau Ffestiniog toward Bala.

15.10 South Wales to north Wales, Liverpool & Manchester

Aside from the longer-term rail innovation and much improved express Traws Cymru bus services, we also have to better utilise the Marches Line. It matters not that it weaves back and forth across the border (as many railways in many countries do).

For trips from the southeast to anywhere on the north Wales coast, Liverpool or Manchester the Marches Line is vital. But today journey times whilst competitive with the car could be improved even more. Sir Peter Hendy’s Union Connectivity Review [30] also highlighted the strategic importance of upgrading this line.

Today the ~300Km rail trip from Cardiff to Bangor can take between 4 hours 15 minutes and 5 hours (so 70Kph max average speed); Cardiff to Wrexham takes between 2 hours 45min to 3 hours 30 minutes; Cardiff Manchester services are often 3 hours 30 minutes.

Figure 210 Strategic N-S Rail and Bus routes in Wales

The Marches line could/should be upgraded to enable faster long-distance services from Cardiff to Manchester, Liverpool, Wrexham, Chester, and Bangor/Holyhead, etc. The key measures could take off at least 30 mins of such trips, and include:

Reducing the number of stops by back filling local stations with new local all stopper services. For example, in CCR, Cwmbran and Pontypool (and a new Caerleon stop) should be served with local Metro services NOT long-distance services. Near Wrexham, Chirk, Ruabon and Gobowen could also be served with local services. For example, the opportunity operate Merseyrail 777 services on the Borderlands line could be extended south to serve these stations and perhaps include a re-connection to Oswestry (This might mean losing Wrexham Central?)
More ambitious, one could re-instate the oft discussed Shotton curve meaning that some Cardiff-Bangor services could avoid the “detour” and reversal at Chester. These could reduce the route length by 20km and take out a time-consuming stop/reversal at Chester (which would still be served by new Cardiff-Liverpool services and, if NPR ever gets to Chester, by some Cardiff-Manchester services.).

This option also exemplifies a challenge in planning rail services and some of the “tough choices”. Whilst clearly not without cost and offering a journey time benefit, the Shotton curve, by allowing services from Cardiff to the NWML to miss Chester, will also impact revenues and subsidy. Chester is a big trip generator and not routing through Chester may result in a service with reduced farebox and higher operational subsidy. The question then is, can the reduced journey times for faster north-south services generate sufficient additional revenues to offset that lost by not serving Chester, and how do we “value” the wider strategic benefits of faster N-S services Vs the pounds and pence we might get at Chester? This question exemplifies the challenge of operating any public service with finite resources and unconstrained expectations.
All the above will need some degree of line speed and signalling upgrades, station enhancements, some passing loops AND ideally OLE to enable full electric operations.

Given those enhancements, I suspect we could reduce the current Cardiff-Bangor journey time by at least 30 mins (if not more) to 3 hour 30 mins and perhaps, more important from a commercial perspective, offer a 2 hr 30 min Cardiff-Manchester service (Despite the cancellation of HS2a, work is required at Crewe to reflect the need to ensure quick/easy flow of services from the Marches Line to Manchester)

A longer-term option for N-S links, and building on the innovation work above, we could apply the same LR principles to enable a new N-S rail service(but to repeat, the upgrade of the Marches line has to be the priority). This would require partial upgrades to the existing Cambrian and Heart of Wales (HoW) lines, new connections from the HoW Line at Builth to Moat Road[31] and the Porthmadog – Caernarfon-Bangor link described above.

Another consideration is to avoid building a lot of new rail infrastructure that will be poorly used adding to OMR costs for already existing poorly utilised rail routes. These proposals will result in greater utilisation of some sections of the existing HoW and Cambrian line and require less new track for Moat Road to Builth (~50Km) than the Carmarthen-Aberystwyth reopening (~85Km).

This configuration would allow services from Swansea/Cardiff using new lighter rolling stock to reach Bangor along the west of the country. This is very much longer term (2040s?) and will depend on more political decision as the costs are likely to be very high and so would be based more on the strategic case.

This longer-term option Figure 210 would connect up more of Wales western population and so more honestly reflect Wales’s demographics and enable both local and long-distance services which can and should be fully integrated into the national rail/bus network. Importantly, whilst there are some compromises, it minimises the extent of new/reopened lines required (and minimises costs of such) whilst maximising connectivity.

A Swansea – Bangor express route of say 260Km with perhaps 10 stops and a top speed of 140kph (let’s assume an average speed of maybe 85 kmph) might take just over three hours? This compares to the existing rail option of five and half hours or a four-hour car trip and a bus trip of even greater duration. Having an express N-S rail services on some of the HoW line and given the low local population, this also presents an option to back fill some stops with more local and integrated bus services (instead of more costly local rail services).

As an exemplar, there are some ambitious longer-term plans for improved rail services in the West of Ireland Figure 211 (which has some similarities to West/Northwest Wales in terms of demographics) as set out in Ireland’s 2024 “All Island Strategic Rail Review”[32]. The example of the Bernina Express is also relevant. So, despite the challenge we can learn from others as we consider opportunities in the west of Wales.

In all this, I still think the Carmarthen-Aberystwyth connection is best and most efficiently delivered by the new electric buses introduced by TfW. In fact, post WG bus reform, a single express Traws Cymru Bus network should be fully integrated with the rail network. If we can also adopt a “Clock face” Taktfahrplan type timetable approach to integrate long distance and local services (bus and rail) we could transform long distance PT connectivity across Wales.

Figure 211 Excerpt from All Ireland Strategic Rail Review (Arup July 2024)

15.11 Bus services, networks and integration

Ultimately, passengers want a simple to use and understandable public transport services, with unified and affordable fares and ticketing, which gets them to where they want to go, irrespective of the mode. In this context, interchange and the role of connected grids is fundamental, especially in urban areas (See 12.4 Public transport grids, networks and segregation), where the role of the bus and integrated bus services will be fundamental.

Perhaps the role of buses and public transport was best expressed by the former Mayor of Bogota, Enrique Penalosa, who said,

“an advanced city is not one where the poor move about in cars [but] where …. the rich use public transportation”.

Delivering bus/bus, bus/rail integration and attractive bus services, is perhaps the most institutionally challenging task we face. This is exacerbated given we still have in effect a de-regulated industry ( a legacy of the Thatcher Government’s 1985 Transport Act which has stymied bus/rail and multi-operator integration across the UK outside London ever since), with multiple private operators, and where local authorities have primary responsibility for matters such as bus support grants and highway powers to enable bus lanes and bus priority and segregation etc.

As much of a challenge is a rail industry that makes a great play of the ability to buy a ticket between any two points on the UK network, as if that was of primary importance. In reality, it will be far more useful to passengers to better integrate local rail and bus services (more like TfL where buses were never de-regulated as they were in the rest of the UK in the 1980s). For example, how many people want to travel between say Aberdare and Hartlepool by train vs say Aberdare and Talbot Green (which requires both rail and bus). The former ticket exists, the latter not (yet). This is the primary issue Transport for Wales is trying to address, this kind of thinking seems a little less obvious in the more mode siloed Whitehall transport bureaucracy. I hope the new UK Government can begin to address this inertia.

Getting better bus services is not easy and we have to recognise the need for multiple interdependent interventions. This is not an exhaustive list but has to include measure to improve or enhance : vehicles/fleet, bus lanes and prioritisation, stops and interchanges (bus/bus, bus/rail and bus/rail/AT), fares and ticketing, passenger information, overall network design and branding.

The biggest benefit TfW can deliver in the next few years, is in enabling multi-modal integrated fares and ticketing so that at least in the main urban areas we can deliver, for example, simple multi modal and multi operator fares/tickets and a capped PAYG multi-modal transport system using simple to use tap on/tap off card readers.

To exemplify the fares and ticketing challenge this is far more than an “Oyster card” type offer – in the current deregulated bus world, we have to deal with the commercial and contractual relationship between operators and negotiate how fare revenues are apportioned between operators and implement the technical systems and infrastructure to enable this commercial back-office integration. This is not a trivial challenge and TfW is making good progress in a collaborative approach with bus operators.

However, it is clear that legislation will be required[33] to make it easier for WG and TfW to develop joined up rail and bus networks, and to specify and procure franchised and/or concession based, bus services (to start to reverse the 1985 Transport Act). It will also simplify the commercial arrangements related to fares apportioned for franchised services or concessions as TfW will be able to collect fares and take on the revenue risks.

Welsh Government initiated a consultation on its planned bus legislation in 2022[34]; I hope that by 2026 we will have changed the legislative framework for bus the industry in Wales to make integration easier and normal. The task then falls to TfW (is set out as a priority in their 2024/5 Business Plan[35]) and the regions across Wales to develop and implement redesigned franchised bus networks and services.

I am sure we in Wales can take lessons from Greater Manchester who have already started re-regulating their bus services via its new integrated Bee bus network Figure 212; made possible under the provisions of the 2017 Bus Services Act in England[36]. West Yorkshire will likely follow[37].

Figure 212 Mayor Andy Burnham and the Bee Network

There are also plenty of sources of insight, capability and experience we can (and are) drawing on; for example, HiTrans Best Practice Guidelines[38] and from The Urban Transport Group[39].

In terms of services, we need to redesign local bus networks so that they more overtly integrate with other bus networks and especially rail services, as well as Active Travel. Across Wales we also need a single express Traws Cymru network that is fully integrated with the rail network and available via single ticket. In all cases a focus on interchange, multi-modal networks, relocated bus stops, clock face timetables and “turn up and go” frequencies in urban areas, will be essential. Nor can we lose site of the importance of much more bus priority and segregation in urban areas, and in some places the application of gold/silver standard BRT systems and appropriately specified vehicles. (See 12.4 Public transport grids, networks and segregation).

There is, especially given financial constraints, an opportunity to deploy public subsidy for PT more efficiently than is the case today where in some cases we are supporting competing services. I am also not blind to the funding challenges but note this is partly as a result of the current fragmented bus ecosystem. Nonetheless, we will need more support for bus operations, as well as rail and do so cognisant of the wider and larger benefits that can be secured.

TfW is also working to enhance and decarbonise bus fleets across Wales (including exploring Hydrogen traction power[40] as well as introducing innovative services like Fflecsi (which is a modern manifestation of the Bwcabws scheme).

Finally, and perhaps the most important consideration, in “re-regulating” bus services we also need to be careful not to lose the flexibility and innovation of private bus operators. We don’t want to load down the bus industry with rail industry processes, thinking and costs. We actually need more bus industry thinking at the heart of integrated transport planning and operations. Transport for Wales is going to have to tread very carefully to achieve this as it risks importing too much traditional “Heavy Rail” thinking and behaviours into its culture.

It is this degree of integration, which whilst a challenge to achieve, will eventually deliver the single joined up public transport network we deserve, and necessary to attract people out of their cars and to help deliver on our collective decarbonisation obligations.

We should be under no illusion; Transport for Wales has a very tough job on its hands.

Anyone involved in bus franchising, network redesign, etc would be well advised to get a copy of, and read Jarrett Walkers updated book – Human Transit[41]. In fact, I’d make it compulsory reading. Jarrett has a wealth of international experience in bus network redesign and sets out some of the key principles and techniques to help us on our way, especially the need to be clear on your objectives; critically the question of ridership Vs coverage (See 12.2 Choices and compromises – especially ridership V coverage).

15.12 Active Travel

Every time someone shouts or waves a fist at cyclist from behind the wheel of their car, they need to think a little more. Would they prefer that cyclist were in another car on the same road adding to the congestion and noxious emissions? The truth is, every time someone walks or cycles instead of driving, they are taking pressure of our congested roads, saving us all money through reduced wear and tear, better air quality and a healthier populace requiring less need to call upon our overburdened health service.

Perhaps with slower cars, we may not need cycle paths everywhere, but we have to recognise they could help deliver significant modal shift in urban and more densely populate areas where car trips are generally short (often LT 3 Km). On that basis I see no reason why we can’t accommodate a lot more walking and especially cycling in Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, parts of northeast Wales and some of the elongated coastal settlements along the north Wales coast.

The hostility often generated toward the idea of re-allocating road space to pedestrians and cyclists is frankly bizarre, given more people walking and cycling such will reduce the number of cars on the road and so reduce congestion for those that actually need to use their cars. And most cyclists and pedestrians are also drivers.

This is not about “no cars”, as many people for some trips have no option but to drive (especially in rural areas), it is about making it easier for more people to make different mode choices. Remember, most of our urban roads were not designed for cars, they were designed for cycling, active travel and public transport. And more people walking and cycling, means a healthier populous, fewer car on the roads, and so more space for people who actually need to drive. It’s a win win.

15.13 A better post HS2 UK rail network

As I set out in The Rail Industry, Wales and HS2 Wales has been poorly served by the UK rail industry and by the constitutional treatment of schemes like HS2. But we are where we are, so I’d like to conclude this section with some suggestion re HSR in the UK and Wales. Not all of these are my ideas and draw upon the more detailed work of others.

It can’t have escaped anyone’s attention that the UK rail network has a problem. Rail trips from most major cities in the UK to London are generally electrified, regular, fast and reliable – albeit often too expensive. Hower try a trip not involving London, for example Cardiff to Leeds or Newcastle or Bristol to Liverpool. Such journeys offer a very different rail experience and are generally less frequent, slower, non-electrified and often less reliable. The primacy of London in the UK rail network, as it is for the economy, is a problem we need to address. We need a UK rail network that links all our major cities and city regions, not just to London.

In essence, post HS2, I think the UK Government and DfT (and the Scottish Government, Welsh Government with fully devolved powers and empowered sub national transport bodies in England) need to consider a “better HS rail network” for the UK. Such a network has to be focussed on capacity and integration and not just speed. For me, Greengauge have started to set out many of the best ideas; I have added a few more re Wales, for example:

It seems inconceivable to me that some form of HS2 Phase 2a to Manchester will not be developed. This is the part of the UK network in most need of capacity and where most of the benefits of the original HS2 programme were to be found – north of Birmingham
It has to be an English priority to better connect the major northern cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield and Hull. This is a region of well over 10 million people. Whether this is achieved via an expanded TransPennine Route Upgrade or Northern Powerhouse Rail is less important than actually delivering this long overdue upgrade in strategic public transport in the north of England. I would probably expand the connectivity to Newcastle and from a Welsh perspective I think it important that any scheme extends and connects via Chester into north Wales and the NWML
One of the failings of the current now truncated plan for HS2, was its requirement for bespoke rolling stock capable of 220mph+ and lack of integration with the wider network. I always felt that not connecting HS1 and HS2, HS2 and the GWML and HS2 with Heathrow was a strategic failing of the current plans. We need a network that joins up more places and is able to operate the same rolling stock for operation on both the new HS2 line and the existing rail network. The specification of HS2’s new rolling stock will, I suspect, need to be revised anyway to be more classic compatible (with a top speed of perhaps 180mph for which there is already a mature market) and less bespoke
In fact, where practical, there should be direct services connecting all the UK’s major city regions Figure 213 as well as other “non-city region” major agglomerations like Nottingham/Derby, Leicester/East Midlands, Bournemouth/Poole, Portsmouth/Southampton, etc). Then connecting services at major hubs & interchanges for other smaller locations. These ought to be developed and delivered as part of a truly UK network that for example builds on the X network as proposed by Greengauge^[42]^. I would expand their connectivity concept to include the SWML and NWML to improve links into north Wales, given primacy of links to Manchester over London, and to address Cardiff’s status as the most poorly rail connected major city in the UK Figure 215 and so doing enable further direct services to place like Newcastle, Leeds, Glasgow and Edinburgh. The recent Juergen Maier Review[43] will clearly influence future UK Labour policy with respect to strategic UK rail connectivity; although it omitted to address Wales’ primary issues.
This entire network should be developed with the ability to support through running from major UK cities (including Cardiff and Bristol) via the Channel tunnel to Europe as envisioned by Eurotunnel in the early 1990s. Figure 214

Figure 213 ONS Estimated population of City Regions 2015[41]

Figure 214 Rail connection from Eurotunnel in the early 1990s

Figure 215 From Greengauge 21 -Rail connectivity for major UK Cities

Back to: 14 Some context and data that will shape future projects

Navigation

Next page: 16 How do we make that happen?

References

[1] Lee Waters, February 2024, Transport for Wales 2.0 (amanwy.blogspot.com)

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

[3] DfT 2022, “Cost of prevention of road collisions and casualties ras4001.ods (live.com)
DfT 2019 Reported Road casualties in Great Britain: provisional results 2019 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

DfT 2015 Reported Road casualties in Great Britain: main results 2015 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

[4] Kings Collage, 2018, UK air pollution could cause 36,000 deaths a year – King’s College London (kcl.ac.uk)

[5] Press Release: Pollution From Tyre Wear 1,000 Times Worse Than Exhaust Emissions — Emissions Analytics

[6] The Health Foundation 2021, Health benefits of active travel: preventable early deaths – The Health Foundation

[7] Daniel J Graham, Imperial College University of London, 2007, Discussion paper , “Agglomeration Economies and Transport Investment” discussionpaper11.pdf (itf-oecd.org)

[8] Malcolm Gladwell, Penguin, 2006, “ Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking”

[9] Campaign | Traws Link Cymru

[10] Ex Mayor Vancouver, Gordon Campbell City Region Conference, Cardiff Dec 2011 “Can Cardiff follow Vancouver? – Institute of Welsh Affairs (iwa.wales))

[11] My Metro blogs: Mark Barry – @SWalesMetroProf :

Wales’s Metros – Update Feb 2022 – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

South Wales Metro & Devolution – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

Metro, subsidies & Cardiff… Some tough choices and compromises? – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

Wales, Metro, TOD & Devolution… – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

Cardiff bus station, bus networks and integration… – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

Metro Hopes for 2023… – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

Metro Moans for 2023… – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

Metro, subsidies & Cardiff… Some tough choices and compromises? – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

Do you believe in Metro? – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

South Wales Metro & Devolution – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

A Public Transport Grid for the M4 Corridor… – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

Better rail services for NE Wales – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

No rail devolution? No Swansea Bay Metro! – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

[12] Western Gateway, 2023 Business supports the Western Gateway 2050 Rail Vision

[13] M Barry 2019, A Cardiff Crossrail… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

[14] Mark Barry, 2018, South Wales Metro & Lloyd George Avenue – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

[15] Transport for Wales, Sep 2024, Cardiff Crossrail | Have your say by Transport for Wales (tfw.wales)

[16] Mark Barry, Jan 2024, Cardiff bus station, bus networks and integration… – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

[17] Welsh Government, 2019, WIMD 2019 (gov.wales)

[18] HiTrans Best Practice Guide, 2004, Planning the Networks, Section 3.2 Exploiting the network effect

[19] Mark Barry, 2023 blog Greenways for Cardiff? – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

[20] M Barry, 2024 No rail devolution? No Swansea Bay Metro! – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

[21] Mark Bary, June 2020, A Public Transport Grid for the M4 Corridor… – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

[22] Western Gateway, 2050 Rail Vision, Western Gateway Rail Vision 2050

[23] Mark Barry, 2024 Cardiff Parkway… – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

[24] Mark Barry, 2023 Cardiff Airport…stick or twist? – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

[25] TfW 2023, New stations between Cardiff Central and Severn Tunnel Junction with improved cross border services

[26] A Metro for Northwest Wales A Metro in Northwest Wales…? – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

[27] DfT Restoring your Railway Fund programme update – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[28] Railnews, July 2024, Restoring Your Railway fund cancelled | Railnews | Today’s news for Tomorrow’s railway

[29] Bernina Express – Rhaetian Railway RhB

[30] UCR, 2021, Union Connectivity Review (publishing.service.gov.uk)

[31] N-S Links in Wales North-South Rail(& bus) in Wales – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

[32] Department of Transport and Department for Infrastructure, “All-Island Strategic Rail Review” (Arup) July 2024;
All-Island Strategic Rail Review (www.gov.ie)

[33] BBC Wales News, 2022, Bus shake-up could see one network across Wales – BBC News

[34] Welsh Government, 2022, One network, one timetable, one ticket: planning buses as a public service for Wales

[35] Transport for Wales, Business Plan 2024/5TfW-Business-plan-2024-ENG.pdf

[36] UK Government, 2017, Bus Services Act 2017 (legislation.gov.uk)

[37] West Yorkshire Bus Reform Consultation, 2023, Bus Reform | Your Voice (westyorks-ca.gov.uk)

[38] HiTrans Best Practice Development of Principles and Strategies for Introducing High Quality Public Transport in Medium Size Cities and Urban Regions | TRIMIS (europa.eu)
HiTrans final report 02 03 04.indd (crow.nl)

[39] The Urban Transport Group, Home page | Urban Transport Group

[40] Welsh Government, 2023 Here’s how £1.6bn record transport funding is being used across Wales

[41] Jarrett Walker, Island Press, 2024, “Human Transit”, Human Transit – Book — Human Transit

[42] Greengauge 21 2018, “Beyond HS2”, Beyond_HS2WEB.pdf (greengauge21.net)

[43] Juergen Maier Strategic Rail Review for UK Labour, Urban Transport Group to act as Secretariat on independent Rail and Urban Transport Review | Urban Transport Group

[44] ONS, 2015, Population dynamics of UK city regions since mid-2011 – Office for National Statistics