Appendices – emails & correspondence – How to build a Metro…

To provide some context for the details set out in this book, I have selected a small number of emails and papers that I or others close to the project have issued over the last 20 years. Some of the context in my emails has been overtaken by events and in some cases better decisions subsequently made. However, I believe they help illustrate the challenges of making big changes and delivering big projects in government, and how my views and priorities have changed over the years. You have to adjust in flight.

I have also collated a summary of the key data sets that I use to support my thinking when considering future transport schemes in Wales.

Example emails and other briefing notes

Mark Barry email to Sue Essex January 2002

FAO Sue Essex, Assembly Minister for the Environment
CC Richard Edwards, Chair Environment, Planning and Transport Committee
CC Rhodri Morgan, First Minister

Sue

It was good to see the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) yesterday publish its 10-year strategic plan for UK railways. However, I fear Wales will be left on the periphery as it has been for many years in relation to rail investment. Quite clearly and openly the SRA is focussing the vast amount of funds and resources at London and the southeast of England and the main London/Scotland routes. I travel to London on a weekly basis (and lived there until recently) and can testify to the problems in that region. Wales though, in proportion has the same if not more severe problems – under investment in the Valley Lines, poor rolling stock, poor cross-Wales service integration, etc. It appears that when Richard Bowker recently visited the Assembly he was paying it little more than lip service – i.e. he complied with his and the SRAs obligations to consult us.

It seems the powers of the Scottish Executive and the London Mayor have been effective enough to ensure the inclusion of significant projects for their regions. In contrast Wales’s limited influence has resulted in no major new funds or initiatives (OK the Vale of Glamorgan line – but that’s only £13M or so I understand and was already committed). Given the billions being spent on the Channel tunnel link, the East London line, Thameslink and more in that region cannot some money be found for Wales? The improvement of the track and signalling on the Valley Lines, the provision of extra capacity at Queen street, the completion of the Cardiff loop and a light rail scheme, don’t we deserve new rolling stock as well! If Wales was to receive an equitable share of the public money being provided then I am sure that these and other schemes could be advanced well within 10 years. I don’t buy the argument that rail investment in parts of England (i.e. the routes out of London) will help Wales and impact more of the travelling public than is possible in Wales. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, and without the protection of the Barnett formula, you could argue that it makes more sense to invest more Health & Education funds in England than in Wales.

I support Labour and campaigned strongly for the assembly. This situation now provides an opportunity for the Assembly to really stand up for Wales and demand fair treatment – why cannot the rail budget be allocated in a manner similar to the (I know not perfect) Barnett formula. Cannot the assembly demand that it has the same level of control and influence over rail matters as do the Scottish Executive and the London Mayor. The current proposals are an insult and should be responded to in kind. I look to you Sue and your fellow WAG members to fight our corner on this one by providing a robust and considered response to the SRA proposals.

Kind Regards

Mark Barry

Mark Barry email to Sue Essex Office February 2002

Correspondence with Ian Coucher (CEO NR ) & Jenny Willott (MP)

Example of the obfuscation of NR PR in 2008 – deliberately conflating enhancement and OMR expenditure, and the degree of investment between UK Government and Welsh Government; also ignoring the much higher levels of rail expenditure in other parts of the UK. This kind of obfuscation is still happening today.

Figure 219 2008 Letter from MP Jenny Willott

Figure 220 2008 Ian Coucher Letter #1

Figure 221 2008 Ian Coucher Letter #2

Figure 222 2008 Ian Coucher Letter #3

Mark Barry emails to James Price and Paul Orders October 2009

Mark Barry submission to Wales Transport Consultation 2009

Mark Barry email to Tim James and Stuart Cole 2010

Mark Barry email to David Melding MS February 2010

Various Cardiff Business Partnership correspondence 2010-2013

Some examples of the letters, correspondence the Cardiff Business Partnership had with groups like SEWTA, Department of Transport, etc

Figure 223 CBP submission to SEWTA Consultation August 2012

Figure 224 CBP Letter to DfT Jan 2012 #1

Figure 225 CBP Letter to DfT Jan 2012 #2

Figure 226 Letter from DfT to M Barry July 2012 #1

Figure 227 Letter from DfT to M Barry July 2012 #2

Mark Barry email to WG Minister Edwina Hart April 2012

Figure 228 M Barry email to E Hart April 2012 #1

Figure 229 M Barry email to E Hart April 2012 #2

Luke Albanese briefing note to WG Metro team December 2013

Cardiff Capital Region Metro – Planning and Economics – Working Note 1
Date: 16/12/2013; Rev: 1
Prepared By: Luke Albanese

Executive Summary

The current passenger rail network in SE Wales is heavily subsidised in its current operational configuration using heavy rail standards and operating infrequent services with outmoded and poor quality rolling stock.

This presents a constraint to supply and is likely to prevent the provision of additional services (with associated increased subsidies) being considered – even if they can be afforded in purely capital terms.

However, the electrification programme scheduled to occur by 2020 and the need to procure new or refurbished rolling stock, presents a once in a generation opportunity to reconfigure the rail network so that it can be operated and extended with a far reduced or even “zero” subsidy.

The use of Light Rapid Transit technology can

Deliver higher capacity & very much improved frequencies (typically 6 an hour)
Be operated at substantially lower costs
In so doing attract many more passengers to the network (at least double and possibly more, than the current numbers) reducing the subsidy burden
Enable cost effective and value for money extensions to connect more of the regional population to the Metro network
Form the basis of an integrated and cost effective mobility strategy for the Cardiff- Newport City Region.

This is borne out by the experience of other UK rapid transit systems established over the last 30 years as set out in the paper below, including:

Manchester Metrolink
Tyne and Wear Metro
Croydon Tramlink

All of which have used the same approach, of converting under used heavy rail systems with few passengers and heavy subsidies into mass usage transit systems which cover their own Operating and Maintenance costs entirely.

I in so doing we are cognisant of the

Infrastructure ownership of Network Rail, and the need to both bring them on board and ensure they are remunerated correctly through the TAC regime via an Operator.
The likely changes to staffing regimes and company structures, and the TUPE implications of this.

1. Introduction

The Welsh Government has allocated a funding stream in order to develop the ‘Cardiff Metro’ concept as set out in the ‘Cardiff Metro Impact Study’ of October 2013. The Welsh Government Transport Department has asked the Metro development team to set out, in broad terms to be developed as scheme definition progresses, the anticipated impact of the Metro concept on ongoing operational subsidies for the rail network in the Cardiff Metro area.

This note is the ‘first cut’ in scoping and discussing the issues around operational subsidies for Cardiff Metro.

2. Background

The Cardiff Valley railway lines, broadly defined, have long been thought to be an underutilised asset.

Originally designed as primarily coal haulage railways from the valley collieries to the docks, freight traffic is in recent times small, not to say vestigial.

A passenger service has been maintained (or in some cases re-established) on the main Valley Line railways (Rhymney, Rhonda-Cynon-Taff, Vale of Glamorgan and Ebbw Vale) and the ongoing subsidy requirements for supporting these services are very substantial, accounting for some £35-40 million per annum, reflecting a ‘farebox recovery ratio’ of only 25%.

At the same time the typical service level offered has been modest at best, with hourly or half hourly services from the Valley heads with cascaded and rather poor quality Pacer and Sprinter Diesel Multiple Units.

Notwithstanding this the railways in the Cardiff area have been the subject of some not insubstantial capital investments in the recent past, culminating in the Cardiff Area Re-signalling, whose overall cost amounts to of the order of £220 million1. This investment is not expected to make a positive difference to the subsidy requirements.

Based on the present strategy for Cardiff Metro and referencing earlier work for the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, an outline concept has been developed for increasing the present very low level of service on the Valley Lines towards a ‘rapid transit’ type service, such as that seen in Manchester Metrolink, Croydon Tramlink and the Tyne and Wear Metro system.

This concept would replace the existing heavy rail services, with their low frequencies and life expired DMU rolling stock with high frequency services (that being defined as at least every 10 minutes) operated under modern Light Rail protocols with high quality articulated 30 metre long Light Rail or Tram/Train type vehicles, operating either singly or in trains of two or three cars (up to 100 metres in length). These vehicles would be, if the opportunity arose, capable of operating in a ‘tramway’ type alignment on or next to highway corridors in the area.

Naturally the adaptation of the lines will result in a capital investment which will be a significant commitment for the promoters. It is our view however, that based on the experiences on the systems mentioned above, and others in the UK, the overall requirement for operating subsidy should diminish substantially. In fact, the aim should be to eliminate the operating subsidy (for normal Operating and Maintenance costs) in entirety. This has been the normal expectation from DfT in respect of all Light Rapid Transit systems in the UK, and by and large it has been successfully achieved (with the present exception of Midland Metro).

This is not to say that it is realistic to expect this to represent a commercial grade investment where the Capex can be amortised from the farebox, as this is entirely unrealistic. Rather it is to aim to the situation where the railway can ‘wash its face’ on an annual basis and not prove a drain on the Welsh exchequer.

3. Tyne and Wear Metro

The first UK modern Light Rail/Light Metro network, was based on the conversion of the North and South Tyne loop railways, via tunnels in the City Centre of Newcastle, and under Gateshead, creating a loop in an ‘e’ shape , with extensions to the West (Airport) and in recent years towards Sunderland in the South (on a shared Network Rail alignment).

Built between 1974 and 1984 the system 45 kms at first and now in excess of 70 kms (cost approximately £1.2-1.4 Billion in today’s prices) transformed local railway patronage of less than 5 million per annum, to 20 million at opening in 1980, to a peak of 66 million in 1985 just prior to bus deregulation. Even today the system carries in excess of 40 million passengers per annum in the face of stiff local bus competition and an effective local highway network.

The initial operating losses of nearly £700,000 per annum in 1969 prices were eliminated effectively in the early 1980s, turning a moribund asset (in fact a substantial liability) into one of the great assets of the region. Estimates made show that overall operating costs reduced to between ½ and 1/3 of the pre-conversion level per vehicle km, and revenues rose by similar proportions balancing the books effectively. In this case the local PTE remained in charge and its fare policy was very socially oriented. Premium pricing was not considered in that context but through fares on the local bus network were offered. Frequencies were typically doubled from 20 minutes to 10 minutes on the system.

Analytical work by Tyson (1990) and others showed that in the severe recession of the early 1980s, when much of the traditional manufacturing base of the area was being lost, Tyne and Wear Metro patronage held up substantially better than other public transport networks in other parts of the country.

Badged as the first (and to this date only) fully integrated transport system in the UK (and modelled on German practice), it showed beyond doubt that in large urban areas where populations had been spread out along traditional industrial corridors that rapid transit systems, based on existing infrastructure but with reduced operating costs and increased service levels were a realistic way to improve mobility and access to employment centres in UK cities.

4. Manchester Metrolink

The second UK Light Transit network (we exclude the DLR on account of its special circumstances supporting a large ‘clearcut’ redevelopment area), was planned from about the same time as Tyne and Wear Metro but was caught in the late 70’s economic crises and early attempts to build a tunnelled solution across Manchester City Centre (the Picc-Vic concept) were finally superseded by the concept of joining the former Cheshire Lines Altrincham railway to the Bury Railway across the city centre using street tramway track, its first new use in Britain for over 40 years.

The system was procured under a very early version of what would become the PFI framework, with the operator taking the revenue risk for a 30-year concession. The concept behind the investment was that the previous Section 20 payments by the PTE to support the 7 million passengers using the two lines would be capitalised for the conversion (over 30 years of the concession life) and that there would be no further support from the subsidy ‘pot’ Frequencies increased from a typical half hourly or 20 minute service to about 7 minutes.

The conversion took about 18 months in 1991-1992 and the level of success was substantially greater than had been envisaged with demand more than doubling immediately on opening (frequency and accessibility being the two key drivers). This was particularly the case as the concessionaire decided to price off ‘excess demand’ on the network and the fares were surprisingly high. In the event the network proved to have a very great deal of off-peak demand and the network was substantially revenue positive during the first concession. In fact, the scheme was so profitable that the PTE terminated the contract at the first allowable Contractual Break Point and used the revenue stream to fund Phase 2 of the system, let under the PFI as a joint Phase 1 and Phase 2 contract.

Subsequent conversions (and there are a substantial number in development at present) have supported the original business model, with access from outer-lying towns, formerly industrial centres in their own right, to the Metropolitan centre showing substantial increases in patronage from the former rail services, which were low frequency and worked with older rolling stock and infrastructure, and with heavy rail operating and maintenance costs (typically 2-3 times the equivalent light transit costs per vehicle km).

5. Croydon (London) Tramlink

Although tarnished by the somewhat acrimonious buy-back of the PFI concession by TfL in 2008, there is little doubt that in the context of this discussion, Tramlink is a very substantial transport success, and furthermore even under TfL’s very highly regulated fares regime, has little difficulty in covering its Operating and Maintenance costs. With 30 million passengers per annum, and incorporating former railway lines (Croydon to Wimbledon, Addiscombe to Elmers End), and new lines (Croydon to New Addington, and Croydon to Beckenham Junction) with railway infrastructure and a 6 km tramway loop around Croydon town centre, Tramlink is presently the UK’s most heavily patronised conventional Light Rail network. Frequencies increased from hourly on the Wimbledon branch to every 8 minutes.

Procured under the PFI framework, the Concessionaire made a substantial capital investment in the infrastructure in return for the fare revenues. In the event, an overrun in the Capital costs, and regulation of the fare revenues by the new Mayoralty of London meant that the Concessionaire found it difficult to amortise his capital investment according to his business model.

Nevertheless, the basic O&M costs of the system were completely covered, and TfL repurchased the concession in 2008 and continue to operate the system (via First Tram Operations Ltd.) without any ongoing operating subsidy, in contrast to the London bus network which is heavily subsidised. This was in marked contrast to the former Railway operations which carried few passengers and were heavily supported (again, local rail patronage was about 7 million per annum), and seen as a liability. In fact, BR was intent on abandoning the rail services mentioned, seeing no future in them whatsoever, prior to the Tramlink concept emerging in the late 1980s.

6. Valley Lines Network

The Valley Railways in the Cardiff area exist in unusually geographically constrained circumstances. In most cases there is limited opportunity for expanding the highway capacity in the areas concerned.

At the same time the former industrial areas flanking the Valleys are clearly forming the nuclei of some potentially attractive suburban towns in what is developing into the Cardiff Metropolitan area.

Patronage on the various Valley Lines presently varies between 3 million (Rhymney) and 6 million per annum (RCT).

It is our view that, in the light of the other light transit developments in the UK mentioned above, and in the likelihood of increased road congestion and greater centralisation of employment and shopping opportunities in the Cardiff-Newport urban core, the development of the strategic sites presented in the Metro Impact Study, that the ‘rapid-transitisation’ of the Valley railways will likely see:

A manifold increase in patronage and revenue
A substantial decline in operating and maintenance costs
A reduction, or elimination of the present Operating Subsidy requirements

In fact it is likely, in common with similar integrated transport networks in Continental cities (Germany, Netherlands, France) that Metro will become the core of mobility in the City region, and dependent upon fares policies will, like other systems in the UK, be able to be operated as viable & dynamic business, capturing the best of UK & Continental public transport practice.

Further development of the analytical and technical underpinnings of the Metro network will be carried out to corroborate the likely investment outcomes. We will be particularly cognisant of the need to involve the Infrastructure Owner (Network Rail), the present contracts for Freight Services on the system, and the TUPE implications of a substantially revised Operating Framework for the system. The Key stakeholders will be fully engaged at all stages of the process

Mark Barry email to WG Minister Edwina Hart May 2014

FAO Minister Edwina Hart only

Minister, having had brief discussions with James and others, I recognise the challenges and sensitivities around the Metro and its potential impact on the VLE programme. Following my earlier notes to you and based upon the work and the emerging findings of the Implementation Team, there is, in my view, a major opportunity to embark on a far more beneficial programme than currently proposed for VLE. We can develop and deliver an exemplar integrated transport network with a conversion of the core Valley Lines to Light Rail as the foundation.

With the output of the various work streams, most notably The Value for Money and Network Separation studies, nearing completion I will be in a position to present a draft Strategic Implementation plan at the end of June. The City Region Board are also aware of this emerging plan, and I propose to share a draft with them later in June. I am also conscious of increasing concerns of some of your officials as to the ramifications of the proposals which is beginning to inhibit my freedom to operate with suggestions that I modify the form and emphasis of the Strategic Implementation Plan. Whilst I appreciate the concerns underlying this phenomenon, we should recognise the greatest benefits are typically associated with the greatest risks.

I wanted you to be fully aware of this opportunity and the challenges, to better inform you and Cabinet colleagues in any ongoing discussions and to seek your guidance on how I should proceed.

You should be aware that the team I assembled includes expertise and experience of planning, developing and operating a number of Light Rail schemes (inc. Dublin Tram, Croydon Tramlink, Manchester Metro link and Tyne and Wear Metro) as well as traditional heavy rail and Bus Transit schemes.

In undertaking this work and as I set out in my earlier notes to you, it became very clear that the affordability and value for money assessment would be a primary determinant of the validity of the plan. I have set out the key aspects of the emerging plan and some of the implications below.

Overall Metro Vision

Development & Delivery of an integrated multi modal rapid transit network across the Cardiff Capital Region – a truly transformative project for Wales and The Cardiff Capital Region

Connecting more people to more places
Enable and/or enhance development across the region
Help to creative a more economically dynamic Cardiff Capital Region

This Vision has three strategic programmes:

Conversion of core valley line network to Light Rail
Relief Line/ M4 Corridor Enhancements using Heavy Rail and Bus Rapid Transit
Integration across all modes and ticketing

And some nearer term tactical interventions:

Augment the current capital programme with additional schemes as funds become available (esp. a number of new stations and a Bay-Centre tram link).
The team is also scoping a range of Metro development & regeneration interventions.

1 – Convert core Valley line Network to Light Rail

Whilst the VLE programme does deliver benefits, this proposal will be far more transforming – especially for the valley communities it serves – and more affordable to Welsh Government in the longer term. This could be an exemplar public transport project on a scale not seen in the UK since the Tyne and Wear Metro was introduced in the 1970s

Requires that the VLE programme for the core valleys (Rhymney, Merthyr, Treherbert and Aberdare – so not Ebbw Vale and Maesteg) is enhanced based upon a conversion to Light Rail.
- will deliver higher service frequencies and shorter journey times Vs VLE; 3 trams per hour to the HoV and easier to increase than Heavy Rail
- 20% more patronage/revenue & 20% less cost Vs VLE (we used the same fare assumptions as VLE)
- Reduced subsidy per year for core network Vs VLE of ~£20m pa and potentially more
- Operations expected to breakeven by late 2020s
- Better value for money than current VLE programme
- Is an extendable network at marginal capital cost; the NW Corridor project business case expected to be much stronger as an extension of this core LR network
This network utilises the existing core valley network with some on-street sections (less than 5km) in Central Cardiff to enable complete separation from Network Rail’s Heavy Rail network
Ownership, implementation & management of this network would need to be ceded to a new “infraco” body and removed from traditional Heavy Rail franchised operating environment
This is the model so successfully adopted for the Manchester Metrolink, Croydon Tramlink and earlier the Newcastle Tyne & Wear Metro, which all used converted Heavy Rail lines as a foundation.
Could deliver core >100km rapid transit LR network by early 2020s
Informal discussions with industry colleagues and associates at the ORR support the LR conversion as the “right thing to do” for the core Valley Lines.
Further benefits to calculate re: integration, generalised journey times, environmental, etc – to be explored and quantified in OBC/Full business case
In addition to costs for electrification the estimates for the core LR conversion (excluding inflation, risk and optimisation bias, etc) are of the order of £650-750M (which includes tram rolling stock). I must stress this is still very much under development. It may be possible to reduce the costs of electrification if designed for LR rather than HR operations.

This is a challenging proposition. NR may not engage easily with these proposals given the potential change in ownership and/or management of the current valley line asset; current discussions with UK Government re: VLE, rail powers, etc may also be influenced by these proposals; there may also be some HR issues. However, such LR schemes have been implemented in the UK before and all such issues addressed.

I am concerned that you and fellow Ministers are aware of this potential. At the very least any agreement on VLE and/or powers should aim not to prevent us making progress on this scheme. A commitment to an exclusively heavy rail solution could rule out a Light Rail programme for another 15 years. It may be prudent to engineer a delay in current VLE negotiations to allow the LR proposal to be developed more fully.

Whilst this programme will add capital costs there are funding options. For example, aside from its track access fee from ATW, NR in Wales also receives a Network Grant direct from DfT. If the core valley network is taken out of the NR asset base and transferred to a new “Metro” body the DfT could save some of this and perhaps be persuaded to contribute a portion in additional capital to help fund the conversion. Similarly, the reduced operating subsidy that WG will benefit from can be capitalised for a period to contribute to the capital requirement. This is not unlike the model adopted for the Metrolink. And of course, we have more traditional capital sources & EU funds.

More positively Metro could perhaps present an opportunity to change the focus of current discussions from “who pays” for VLE to a more collaborative “who benefits” from Metro that is both more ambitious, better value for money and will in the longer term, reduce the cost burden on both Welsh and UK Governments.

I am of the view that that this programme presents a truly unique opportunity to deliver Wales a transformative and affordable project that can capture significant public support. In fact, it is perhaps Wales’s “HS2” and with EU funding an opportunity to project a very positive image of the EU in the UK?

2 – Enhance public transport along the South Wales relief lines and M4 corridor between Cardiff and Severn Tunnel Junction

This programme is less contentious and has fewer institutional risks than the above LR conversion and is only really constrained by available capital

Major connectivity improvement to large populations in east Cardiff and East/West Newport
Enhance connectivity to business parks along M4 corridor
Based on new/revised rail services & stations between Cardiff, Newport & Severn Tunnel Junction
And implementation of Newport Bus Rapid Transit service (with no subsidy impact)
This programme is complementary to the M4 programmes which should explore a Park and Ride expansion at Severn Tunnel Junction to complement this programme
Possible to bring forward some of the new stations proposed as capital funds become available (St Mellons, Llanwern, Newport West, Rover Way, Magor) and where there is no subsidy impact in advance of the next franchise.

3 – Integration

Both above capital schemes will be enhanced, and greater benefits delivered, by fully integrating local bus services into the Metro network
Will also require investment in a number of strategic interchanges across the region
Single ticketing and branded network also required
This requires a coordinated approach ideally led by a regional transport body

Short Term and Tactical Measures

The current programme is underway – this is manly focussed on the Ebbw Valley Lines enhancements and new stations at Pye Corner and Ebbw Vale Town, as well as capacity enhancement on the Maesteg branch along with some P&R and station improvement schemes. A number of enhanced bus/rail integration schemes are also being progressed ( e.g. Newport Bus Station, Merthyr Rail Station)
We will be in position to identify early extensions to those programmes should capital become available that will include recommended new stations from the Relief Line Programme
This could include the bay-centre tram link as a first phase of a wider LR conversion programme

Development Regeneration

We have progressed work to identify a number of station related development/regeneration opportunities. Some are contingent on new stations (and these in turn may be dependent on the LR conversion) others can progress in the near term at/near existing stations.
More strategically – and no matter what the scope of Metro – regional and local planning should be much more integrated with public transport service

Key questions/considerations

That ministerial discussions re VLE are fully informed by the Metro and especially the potential to operate the core Valley Lines as LR
Agreeing a less than optimal deal with UK Government could prevent us making any progress on LR on core network for 15/20 years
Given the sensitivities and the perhaps our weak bargaining position perhaps it would be better to let VLE go in a controlled manner, on the basis we can work with DfT and Treasury on a LR scheme that could deliver far more and save both UK and Welsh Governments money? Albeit there would be a larger capital requirement to implement.
If it was advantageous to you we could seek to defer publication of our plan and/or position as a “green paper” or arms length report from your Metro Implementation Team?
Are you content for me to share the draft plan with The City Region Board

Key next steps I’d like to propose

The Strategic Implementation Plan is published for consultation? – I would prefer not to have to “water it down”?
The team progresses with more detailed work on all the proposals and especially the LR conversion
Depending on Ministerial decision as regards approach to VLE, and the stage of those negotiations, that the team begins formal discussion with DfT, ORR, etc re a core valley LR conversion
That we consider dovetailing my recommendation with those of Kevin Morgan re a development and delivery body for Metro.

Very happy to meet to discuss face to face at your convenience. I apologise for not using standard channels as I wanted you to have early sight of the emerging proposals.

Thanks

Best Regards

Mark

Mark Barry email to WG Minister Edwina Hart July 2014

FAO Minister Edwina Hart Only

Minister

Forgive the direct note. I am not sure how you are briefed on this, so pls treat this as trying to best inform you rather than circumvent process

The Implementation Team and I completed the “Metro Strategic Implementation Plan” a couple of weeks ago. This final form was revised and incorporated comments from an external peer review group; the report also reflected and addressed general concerns from Jeff/James etc –esp. as regards position of VLE. I can forward this and/or an exec summary if you wish?
I agreed with Jeff last week and forwarded that version to Claire Bennett who is now preparing a summary that is likely to be more circumspect and one that aligns with other EST and WG considerations and in a style and level of detail more appropriate for WG publication. I have not seen, nor do I expect to influence in any significant way this summary version.
Roger Lewis and Kevin Morgan have seen the final form I produced. I would like to share formally with the City Region Board for their consideration.
As you know there is a more transformative plan that we could prepare (and perhaps the city region can pursue) to replace or augment VLE if required.
I feel we are now at a tipping point pending resolution of issues re governance, commitment, etc
As I am sure others can advise, whilst WG Civil Service can set the strategic direction it is not perhaps the best vehicle to plan, develop and deliver the Metro.

Happy to answer any questions if you have any and/or work through James/Jeff as required. As an fyi I am taking a couple of weeks off from close next Thursday.

Best Regards

Mark

Mark Barry email to WG Minister Edwina Hart September 2014

FAO Minister Edwina Hart Only

Minister

Again, not wishing to circumvent process unnecessarily. However, I though a brief confidential note was appropriate to update you on the status of your Metro Development work.

What is Metro

Firstly, perhaps it would be useful for me to set out the Vision for Metro. It is about providing the passenger a high frequency joined up public transport network; this means at least 4 services per hour, single ticketing across different modes at a price that is both affordable to the passenger as well to government. The key is frequency, which in transport planning terms is more important than absolute journey time, and integration, both of which drive up demand. Aside from increased connectivity/integration, The Metro vision is about growing the regional economy and so the transport components should be aligned closely to economic development for the region and more importantly strategic land use planning. These aspirations were set out in the recent Metro Update Report and have been key themes in all the earlier Metro work. The more detailed work that we have undertaken also supports these aspirations.

However, under the current arrangements the development and delivery of this vision is just not possible in my view – and that of many others. More disappointingly, I feel some of my senior colleagues at EST just don’t buy into this concept and are much more concerned with the ongoing delivery of tactical projects, and of course the electrification programme. I would not argue with the importance of either and will support their efforts in doing so, but we also need the strategic capacity to provide direction for the future of public transport in SE Wales and an ability to develop and deliver the Metro vision to augment electrification – whatever the outcome of current discussions.

VLE and CASR

I support CASR and work to electrify the Valley Lines and have developed Metro to use whatever is confirmed/delivered as a baseline. However, whatever the outcome, we should all be aware of what VLE and CASR will deliver and what they won’t.

VLE will enable the introduction of more efficient and faster electric rolling stock – however, the network will still require a significant operational subsidy making the introduction of additional routes/services problematic from a revenue perspective

The current CASR VLE timetable cannot, nor could it, deliver Metro frequencies of at least 4 tph and ideally 6tph to places like Rhymney, Merthyr, Aberdare & Treherbert (currently 2tph). This is because CASR only provides for an additional 4 tph through the core of the network between Queen St and Central (so 16tph Vs 12 tph today) In fact feedback from NR suggests that even 16tph is on a knife edge in terms of operations and capacity and would not be possible with minor operational perturbations. A practical operational capacity is more likely to be 14 or 15 tph.

This sensitivity of the network and the timetable to minor perturbations makes it impossible or very difficult to introduce new stations on the Valley Lines (eg Upper Board, Gabalfa, Crwys Rd, etc) some of which are related to development opportunities or to extend the network to places like Hirwaun, etc. Whilst some of the network at the periphery could be double tracked, this on its own can’t address the fundamental problems/constraints at the core of the network. These are:

the network capacity between Queen St and Cardiff Central which is 16tph on paper and perhaps only 14/15 tph in practice. (and one of these will be for coal freight)
platform space at Cardiff Central (which also has to accommodate increasing demand for space from new E-W services anticipated in NRs long term planning
the need to accommodate local City Line, Coryton Line and Penarth services (the former are still proposed as 2tph even post CASR which is someway short of Metro aspirations)
and the key rail junctions at Queen St north and Cardiff West.

For all practical purposes it would be impossible to improve Heavy Rail capacity in Central Cardiff to enable >4tph to the Heads of The Valleys and on the City and Coryton Lines in Cardiff without £000ms of further investment and major civil engineering work at the core of the network.

Solutions

As you know, some of the work I have been leading for you presents innovative proposals/solutions that have been applied successfully in other UK and European cities and will in my view, be essential to deliver Metro frequencies across the region– this may require conversion of some Heavy Rail to Light Rail and can be integrated with proposals to link the bay to the city centre as well as the vital extension to RCT from the NW of Cardiff (for which some EU funding could be found). It is also essential that developments in Cardiff City Centre including the Enterprise Zone are informed by Metro development. Without further work on this aspect of Metro asap some building developments could comprise Metro route options.

The programme I have outlined could and should be worked up to be delivered alongside and/or following electrification into the 2020s and so in no way undermines VLE. In fact, without such a vision for the future then as a member of the public I would be asking what the current investment in CASR and VLE of well over £0.5Bn actually gives me – a small incremental change in capacity, some journeys time improvements and for many no change in frequency (which is the key for rapid transit and Metro). Metro provides a rationale for these first steps and the promise of more fundamental enhancements to service provision in the future.

Integration

Another key issue is integration. This is not just about a ticketing or a brand but about the planning and management of the public transport network as a whole – routes, bus grants, services, interchanges, branding, customer information, Park& Ride, etc. This is made more difficult by the fact that all current bodies with an interest in transport planning do so unilaterally and often for their own mode and/or organisation only. For example, NRs long term planning does not consider the impact on demand of introducing integrated bus service and connections at key stations! Cardiff Bus and Newport Bus plan routes that do not really address rail/bus interchange opportunities. Even in Welsh Government, projects are modelled in isolation from one another. There is no body in place to lead and plan transport holistically for the region as a whole. Let alone integrating land use planning.

Current Status of Metro Development

Now, under official direction, your Metro Development work is coming to a standstill. This is not what I expected or anticipated when I agreed to help last year. I was never able to assemble the team we discussed and have, in effect, been working with one hand tied behind my back. There is budget nominally allocated for Metro Phase 2 Development (still £6M available) – however it is not being deployed at present and I no longer have access to it. As we discussed before I went on holiday, I think this should be used strategically and allocated to a dedicated team outside WG/EST to develop for the city region. I fear it will be lost to something less strategic.

I am also disappointed at the negativity and criticism some of my proposals have generated internally – yes I know it needs more work, that is what we are trying to do. But I have to say criticisms could be applied to the VLE programme which has not appraised all the possible options to delivering higher frequency, capacity and reducing costs. As you know, I am persuaded as are many others in the industry, that some LR on the Valley Lines (even if not all) could be far more beneficial from both a passenger and subsidy perspective as well as a means of freeing up significant heavy rail capacity to the HoV This has not been tested at all (apart from the initial work we have undertaken) – and is a fundamental weakness of the current business case in my view. Nonetheless, Metro can work with and use as a baseline whatever is confirmed and delivered as regards VLE.

Leadership and Direction

Effective leaders seek out expertise and experience to help them deliver. One positive example is that Bayo brought in an experienced commercial project manager, Simon Lander, to lead on the procurement and delivery of the £77M “Metro Rail” projects – this person is providing WG some contractual, commercial programme management capability and is more effectively managing parties like NR as well as delivering savings in contracted costs. It is surprising to hear then that his role/position is under threat.

From my perspective I do not have all the answers – so I seek expertise to help. I have discussed with CEOs of PTEs (e.g., Geoff Inskip at CENTRO), ex CEOS of NR (Sir John Armitt), Chairs of major infrastructure projects (Terry Morgan of Crossrail) and have sourced assistance from those with many years’ experience of rapid transit and transport integration (something understandably lacking at a senior level in EST). I will change my mind in the presence of new data/evidence (as I have done over the course of the last 12 months). I fear some colleagues in EST are less open and see external expertise and experience as a threat. We would appear to have bureaucratic rather than technocratic leadership – however, this is not surprising given the breadth of responsibilities across EST.

My fear is that without a focussed and dedicated team with clear leadership and a ring-fenced budget, Metro will be stymied even further with work spread thinly across the department to become a collection of tactical interventions that get lost in the wider remit of the department rather than Metro being a step change strategic project for the city region.

My recommendations.

That funds are released to begin development of a regional multi modal demand model to underpin all transport planning (I raised this last year). This to be developed as a resource for the entire region (local authorities, WG, transport operators, NR etc) to ensure a consistent basis for all decision making and business case as development. No matter where responsibility ultimately lies for regional transport planning this work is needed now so I would not delay. To expedite progress, I suggest Claire and her team get on and lead on this with support from Metro team. The models future “location/management” vis a vis the region can be determined in due course.
That the further development of Metro is taken outside of WG/EST with the allocated budget of £6M to follow into a Metro Co – as discussed this can evolve in response to governance, powers, Williams, etc developments. This would be responsible initially to a board made up from CCR Board and Senior WG officials or similar. Immediate focus is the further development of Bay-Centre link, Cardiff City centre route options, NW Corridor to RCT, Newport BRT and a broader Integration Plan.
Ideally the current Metro Rail programme procurement and delivery functions also move into this body.
I also think that any new body needs credible leadership and so we should look in due course to appoint someone with a track record in this space. I am obviously keen to help and contribute but recognise the need to establish credibility for any new body at the appropriate time.

Happy to discuss and as ever will follow your guidance on next steps. Thanks for your support to date.

Best Regards

Mark

Mark Barry Briefing to CCR Board May 2015

See >> Metro – Briefing Note for City Region Board April 2015 D1.0.pdf

Mark Bary Briefing for CCR LA Leaders/CEOs June 2022

Audience                         Cardiff Capital Region Local Authority Leaders
Date                                  26^th June 2022
Author                             Mark Barry (in an independent capacity as Prof Practice in Connectivity)
Subject                             Informal update & recommendations following TfW’s development of CCR Metro Programme Strategic Outline Case (PSOC)

This informal paper is an update of the paper I shared with CEOs in March this year. It sets out my view (not Transport for Wales or Welsh Government) in my role as Professor of Practice in Connectivity at Cardiff University, of the key issues & my suggestions following TfW’s development of the CCR Metro Programme Strategic Outline Case (PSOC) and parallel work undertaken via TfW’s South Wales Main Line (SWML) Programme. This paper augments TfW’s briefing paper for the CEOs of the CCR in the summer of 2021, the one-to-one meetings that followed and does not replace any more formal interaction you have had or will have with TfW and/or WG.

I am more than happy to meet (via Teams and/or face to face) to discuss.

As a further fyi, I also presented evidence to the Senedd Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee ^[1] on 25^th May, 2022 which is also relevant. I have also attached a short draft working paper re Transit Oriented Development which again I think, in summary, sets out some of the challenges of achieving more sustainable land use linked to Metro.

As a postscript to the issue of this paper to CEOs in March, I did receive some challenge and counter arguments from some officers. Nonetheless I hope my observations help enable better discussions, debate and outcomes. Clearly you and your officers, are under no obligation to act on any of my suggestions, and I do not pretend to be infallible in my views. My intent hopefully is to provide you a broader and perhaps more independent voice to help you in your deliberations with regard to transport priorities, related land use planning decision across the CCR, and their governance and organisational implications.

Context

Transport for Wales via their Metro development teams, have a number of development programmes in progress in SE Wales. These are bringing forward further enhancements to the public transport network to be considered, post the 2024/5 delivery of the CVL transformation and current phase of the south Wales Metro^[2]. They are also consistent with the Wales Transport Strategy Llwybr Newydd^[3]. I want to cover the work of two of them here:

Cardiff and Cardiff Capital Region Metro Programme

This covers and brings together a range of interventions from Welsh Government^[4], individual local authorities (inc. via Cardiff Council’s Transport White Paper^[5]), the Cardiff Capital Region’s (CCR) Metro Enhancement Framework (MEF) and in totality is consistent with the 2021 CCR Rail Passenger Vision^[6]
The South Wales Main Line programme

Following from earlier work of Welsh Government’s South East Wales Transport Commission (SEWTC)^[7] and as endorsed by the UK Government’s Union Connectivity Review (UCR)^[8], this focusses on enhancements to the SWML from Milford Haven through Swansea Cardiff and Newport to Bristol and beyond.

There are other programmes related to Metro Central, some of the more granular Burns recommendations around Newport, as well as an all Wales Bus/Integration Programme which is bringing forward plans for integrated fares/ticketing and a capped PAYG offer.

To help with context, for those with time/inclination these may also be of interest:

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

Wales, Transport Planning & Choices… – Mark Barry (swalesMetroprof.blog)

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

To note, and as set out the CCR Rail Passenger Vision, there were two key omissions in the MEF process/coverage. Whilst the main corridors in the region were covered – inc. many to/from Cardiff, the areas with the most trips/movements (those being within Cardiff itself, and to a lesser extent within Newport) were not adequately covered. Cardiff Council’s Transport White Paper and now the Burns Unit work in respect of Newport has to a great extent addressed that gap and which has flowed through into the work of TfW.

Metro Programmes Background

Before setting up the Metro programmes across Wales in late 2020, TfW’s “development” workload was predominantly driven by WG remits and 10s, if not 000s, of individual requests from across all Wales’s local authorities for specific and often local schemes. This was, and is, unworkable and no basis for the development of strategic plans.

In 2019, TfW was still very much a procurement and contract management organisation set up to procure the Wales and Borders rail franchise. So, over the last 24 months, TfW (and WG) via its Planning, Development and Advisory Directorate led by Geoff Ogden, have established, with my help and support, Metro Development programmes across Wales – each led by a Strategic Development Programme Manager (SDPM) in partnership with WG, NR and Local Authorities. Rob Jones is the SDPM for the CCR Metro Programme.

Primarily this has enabled TfW to better manage and organise its workload remitted from 3rd parties but also to allow it to enable more strategic development across Wales. In short to help bring forward the right projects in the right order. It is this strategic Metro approach that will bring forward more mode specific interventions for development and delivery.

This is based, not only on the growing expertise and capability of TfW’s Planning & Development Directorate, but of very sophisticated transport models that now cover all of Wales, as well as pragmatic application of the Welsh Transport Appraisal Guidelines (WelTAG) with an intent to bring forward fewer, bigger and more strategic packages of interventions. This work also includes the perhaps more complex and challenging task of integrating bus services as part of our Metros – both in terms of services and networks, and of fares/ticketing – this is being progressed via a dedicated complementary programme and likely dependant in part on progressing the bus legislation propose by Welsh Government^[9].

In developing the CCR Programme Strategic Outline Case (PSOC), TfW have diligently tried to reflect all the aspirations in SE Wales/ CCR and are trying to curate a strategic view of all the moving parts, noting that many are at different stages of development.

It is not possible to achieve 100% consistency or satisfy everyone in this endeavour, there will always be some grey at the edges. It is also true that the world looks very different through the lens of one local authority or even WG vs TfW, which sits at the confluence of a very large number of different requests and expectations – some of which are in conflict.

The primary development work in SE Wales

There are two main programmes that are the focus of this note as summarised below:

CCR Programme Strategic Outline Case (PSOC) and please see that document for details

Over the last 18 months TfW, via ongoing interaction and engagement with all the regions local authorities, Welsh Government and other key stakeholders, have prepared a Programme Strategic Outline Case setting out the primary strategic public transport interventions that should/could be undertaken following the current CVL transformation which is due to complete in 2024/5. Note this is distinct from many smaller and local tactical measure that are best progressed and developed by individual local authorities.

TfW’s work has focussed on the primary regional transport connections to help build our strategic public transport grid^[10] (so not the smaller, more local and fine grain or local bus, etc). Because of its geography, evolving history and governance, this programme currently has two Steering Groups (one focussed on projects in/around Cardiff and the other addressing the remainder of the CCR); there are also a number of individual project boards and working groups; the Programme has one overarching Strategy Board.

The Strategy Board (chaired by WG and with representatives from DfT, NR, TfW, CCR, and some of the regions local authorities) approved a draft of the PSOC in December 2021 subject to minor changes/revision which were formally acknowledged in the Strategy Board meeting in June 2022. It is noted the PSOC is now “complete” but will be subject to a refresh (tbc but probably every two years) – and that further measure not detailed in the current form are likely to come forward as a result of ongoing MEF strategic work in the NW Corridor, VoG/Bridgend, and Newport/Chepstow/Marches Line See. The PSOC work and the documents have been shared, I understand, with local authorities. These arrangements are not fixed and should be subject to ongoing review and revision to reflect the scale and location of development work in progress across the region.

Figure 230 CCR Metro Programme Emerging Priorities post CVL transformation

The South Wales Main Line (SWML) Programme See Figure 231

TfW have also established a parallel programme involving the UK Government (via DfT), NR and key stakeholders (inc. from SW England and Swansea/West Wales) to oversee the further development of enhancements on the SWML between Milford Haven and Bristol/SW England. Much of the work builds on much earlier studies and reports going back to SEWTA, The Metro Impact Study^[11] , The WG Case for Investment^[12] and more recently and especially the work of the South East Wales Transport Commission^[13] and latterly the UCR^[14]. It is the latter and the noted support, at least in principle, of the UK Government that may help secure the scale of funding required to deliver this programme.

To note, I have also (in another role) been helping the Western Gateway(until June 2022) in the development of its 2050 rail Vision. This work will reflect all the aspirations arising from the TfW SWML programme as well as augment the priority rail schemes emerging on the other side of Mor Hafren – for example electrification to Bristol Temple Meads. My simple focus and hope, is to help create a strategic unified ask of UK Government from SE Wales and SW England that I consider may enhance the chances of securing funding.

Figure 231 SWML Programme Emerging Priorities

An initial TfW briefing paper was issued to CCR CEOs in July 2021 and a draft summary slide deck was used to frame discussions with each of the Local Authorities (which has been modified slightly during the period – mainly to reflect the Deputy Minister’s Oral Statement on Metros^{^[15]} in October Figure 231 and the publication of Net Zero Wales NZW^{^[16]} and mode shift targets).

Key Feedback from TfW-CEO/Ldr/Snr Officer meetings 2021/22

There was a wide range of feedback from across the region, from being very supportive to critical in part. I feel it may be useful to share the key strategic issues noted, for example:

The majority of Leaders and CEOs were comfortable with TfW’s process and acknowledged their developing capacity and capability in this regard and saw the publication of the PSOC for the CCR as providing the foundation for and an input to, any future Regional Transport Plan (RTP) process as well as WG National Transport Delivery Plan (NTDP)
However, a small minority of officers felt that the upcoming CJC and its anticipated obligation to prepare a RTP, should be the mechanism by which the Metro priorities to 2030 are formally developed and agreed (and not the PSOC TfW have developed over the last 24 months); this did lead to some robust exchanges between myself and some officers
There were also some views shared (again the minority) that in any future regional arrangements, the priorities of the local authority would take precedence over regional considerations
In terms of core transport issues, the following were raised: Ticketing and fare equity, the importance of Metro integration with local bus and active travel; recognition of importance of demand management.

Contextual considerations

All of this work and my suggestions below, is framed within the context of some policy and wider realities:

The climate emergency requires a radical reduction in car use (as set out by Welsh Government in Net Zero Wales^[17]) – irrespective of how they are powered – with a commensurate increase PT and AT mode share. NZW targets a PT increase from 5% to 7% by 2030 and to 13% by 2040; AT to 33% by 2030 and 35% by 2040; with car use falling to 60% by 2030 and ~50% by 2040. In urban areas the need for more PT and AT is therefore unarguable, in combination with a radical change in land use planning to reduce the need to travel by car (including relocations of office, retail, etc back to PT connected places – esp. town and city centres) and a greater emphasis on Transit Oriented Development (TOD). The stark reality is that car use has been a major cause of the decline of many of our traditional high streets^[18]; I referenced phenomenon in my submission to the Senedd Climate Change Committee in May 2022
The funding required for the emerging programmes in SE Wales, both capital and revenue, whilst commensurate with NZW targets, is considerable (circa £2Bn in capital alone for all the possible interventions over the next 10-15 years); it will likely not be possible to deliver all the schemes set out
Rail powers and funding are the statutory responsibility of the UK Government for the NR asset and now, WG for the Core Valley Lines. The funding issues for Wales as a result of this arrangement in respect of the NR asset are well known and there are significant concerns as to the intent of the UK Government to support the level of funding anticipated for these programmes
In advance of any Bus Reform, most local transport measures (other than rail), especially bus (via BSGs) and given local highway powers, are the responsibility of local authorities
The proposed Bus Reform ^[19] measures proposed by Welsh Government could make it easier for WG/TfW/LAs to specify and procure bus services
On its own, building the additional public transport capacity will not be enough to deliver WG NZW targets, the transport modelling undertaken indicates that demand management measure for car use will also be required
In that context, I am of the view that we will need to embrace road pricing (or as I prefer to call it, “a reduction in the road use discount”. In fact, I suspect if we in Wales do not “grab” the initiative, the UK Treasury will do so^[20] to bolster reducing tax take from fuel duties as EV take up grows over the next 20 year
The upcoming WG National Transport Development Plan (NTDP) will likely reflect the content of TfWs CCR PSOC.
All Metro Development is setting out to develop Figure 232 joined up multi-modal, multi operator public transport grids^[21]. In that context it’s not rail V bus, it’s about implementing the right mode based on demand as illustrated in Figure 233

Figure 232 Illustration of “grid” concept

Figure 233 The right mode for the right corridor

My Suggestions…

Given the above, I have set out what I feel are key actions to be considered by WG, TfW and the region and its local authorities.

In terms of transport priorities, I assert that as a result of TfW’s work over the last two years, we now know much more clearly, the “what” and “why” of the major strategic regional schemes required in the CCR out to 2030/35. We are now moving into a “how much will it cost? who pays? and when?” phase of work. This will require some compromise and pragmatism. So, I suggest:

To use the TfW CCR PSOC as “a menu”. Given we probably can’t afford to deliver all the emerging priorities set out, we need to prioritise – perhaps with a focus on quanta of gross mode shift and decarbonisation impact?
On that basis, I think it may help engender a more joined up regional narrative, for the CCR and each local authority to consider “endorsing” the PSOC via the “RTA” and as necessary via individual local authority cabinets? To note all of the PSOC emerging priorities are consistent with the CCR Rail Passenger Vision which the nascent non-statutory RTA has approved. I suspect securing RTA and cabinet “approvals” will also increase the likelihood of securing a UK Government contribution (essential for the interventions on NR asset) as well as a Welsh Government one
In essence, I anticipate two major strategic programmes (with sub-projects) emerging, around which we could try and coalesce political support and funding to enable delivery in the period 2024-2029 (subject to ongoing assessment and refinement and especially an assessment of decarbonisation potential from analysis undertaken by TfW’s Analytical Unit):

A CCR Strategic Programme(s) that is likely a subset of the CCR/CCM PSOC focussing on bigger strategic interventions covering CVL, NR asset, bus and Active Travel. As per a previous email I have suggested that a £600~800M “next phase” package to 2030 could be a reasonable target. (Strategic sub projects inc: CVL enhancements esp. 4tph for City and Coryton lines including tactical measures at Cardiff West Jn; initial CVL extensions like Crossrail and Aberdare-Hirwaun; Ebbw Valley frequency; Maesteg frequency, some BRT like Cardiff-Newport). In this context support for NRs desire for further electrification – esp. VoG line to Barry/Penarth – would add value to the programme
The complementary SWML Programme – linked to UCR/SEWTC recommendations. This is also an estimated £600~800M initial programme to 2030. As stated earlier a Western Gateway Rail Vision will reflect the SWML Programme, UCR, Burns recommendations…etc as well as rail enhancement priorities emerging in SW England.
These programmes should aim to secure funding commitments from UK Government (perhaps in part via UCR, etc) WG, the CCR and its Local Authorities. Clearly more work is required to properly identify, assess and develop funding options for these programmes – and perhaps a focus of discussion between WG, TfW, the CCR and the region’s local authorities
To complement these two strategic programmes (and the wider work of TfW re Bus and integration) , I anticipate a number of smaller, tactical and more local interventions that are best progressed by CCR and/or individual local authorities (with TfW support as required). These could include station/interchange improvements, local active travel, local highway reallocation & bus prioritisation measures and local bus service network optimisation, etc. It seems to me that in some circumstance it will be far more effective for local authorities with the capacity and capability to lead such work with TfW support/coordination as required.

The regional CJC…?

I anticipate that there are still challenges to effectively lead, allocate and deploy commensurate resources, to support the regional responsibilities and governance implied to develop and bring forward statutory strategic regional plans. The governance arrangements also have to reflect spatial, demographic and transport issues and different quanta/scale thereof, across the region. I suspect there is no perfect solution
There is though, an opportunity for the CJC to help the region develop a more strategic land use/transport planning capability and capacity, and to embed Transit Oriented Development; this perhaps should be more of a focus in the period to 2030? On that basis and where perhaps most value can be added to help reduce our car dependency and to help revive local high streets all over the region, the CCR and its local authorities via the CJC should/could focus on:
- In developing a RTP set out any key strategic regional schemes not included or fully developed in the PSOC (noting some may come from MEF studies in progress for VoG/Bridgend and the Eastern Valley/Newport/Chepstow – these may help bring forward need for electrification of some/all the VoG line to Penarth /Barry, operation of Tram-train for Penarth services and potential integration with Crossrail, and enhancement to Marches Line services)
- Helping to ensure that some of the major medium/longer-term schemes are fully developed (esp. given scale of statutory process required) For example the NW Corridor tram-train programme and major works required at Cardiff West junction/links to Crossrail, whilst likely a phased programme into the 2030s will nonetheless need further scheme and business case development over the next two years to support a 2-3 year statutory powers process from perhaps 2025/6; I think a similar focus will be required for: a radical enhancement to cross valley links (esp. between Taff and Rhymney valleys) the Cardiff Circle (and variants thereof) and perhaps Caerphilly-Newport in the longer term.
- Developing finer grain and often more local measures (eg last mile access to stations, active travel, bus prioritisation and highway measures and space reallocation, etc); given more local focus the role of each Local authority will be crucial. In this context the provision of more segregated bus lanes will, in my view, be essential to enable more efficient and attractive bus services. For example, if through the introduction of more bus prioritisation you can double the average speed of bus services you then only need half the number of buses to maintain a particular service frequency (or better still you can double the frequency). We need a similar effort re segregated cycleways to improve safety and attractiveness.
- Developing a more strategic capability re: transport/land use planning, Transit Oriented Development(TOD) and regeneration especially around stations (perhaps linked to WG Transforming Towns programme) – and all aligned to the strategic Metro plans emerging from TfW via the PSOC and later via the RTP. As I set out in my evidence to the Senedd Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, do we need a “Metro Development Corporation” to complement the work of TfW? In this context the opportunity to overtly link the SDP, LDPs and a RTP is real
- Given the above – and especially the mode shift and funding implications thereof – road pricing is likely unavoidable; we also have to consider other measures, eg parking fees, business rates levy related to parking spaces (higher for out-of-town sites/developments) etc.

I hope this helps.

For a broader regional perspective I still think this is worth a read from 2018, Metro and Me and the associated event held in Cardiff

Mark Barry, June 2022

Mark Barry email to selected MPs/MSs 20 February 2023

Note following GT360 Parliamentary reception 20 Feb 2023

James, Sam, Natasha, David, Huw

Good to catch up (and in some cases meet) yesterday (sorry David and Natasha I think I was leaving as you were arriving)

I don’t want to get political here (I think most of my views are well known and probably a source of irritation to some of you) I really just want to make something happen. The scale of rail enhancement needed across Wales over the next 10-15 years is approx. £2~2.5Bn and will deliver major mode shift, decarbonisation especially economic benefits to the both Wales and the UK (esp., those cross border interventions in NE and SE Wales- hence my overt observation of the common cause and advocacy of GT360 and Western Gateway ). This figure is also in the margins when compared to the £100Bn+ Integrated Rail Plan for England. The stark reality is that under the current constitutional arrangements none of the Welsh rail schemes will get funded unless we find a way outside of current DfT RNEP processes.

With a pragmatic head on, given the very real pressures on the DfT budget (HS2 is eating the pie), it seems to me the only practical way of securing a dedicated rail enhancement fund for Wales is for WG and UK Government (so FM/WG treasury and PM/HMT) to develop and agree a bespoke arrangement – a Wales Rail Enhancement pipeline. Naively, why would it not be possible for a WG £100M pa capital commitment for ten years to be matched by say £200M pa from UK Government….? This would allow us to progress schemes that in most cases have already been subject to significant development funding by WG (and by UCR in some cases) through TfW’s Metro Programmes – the reality is that without capital commitment in the next 12 months most of this work will “stall”.

For example:

Deliver the 4tph borderlands integration with Merseyrail and a Deeside Ind Estate station (the new Stadler battery operated 777s presents a very real opportunity to accelerate work(TfW have been in discussion with Merseyrail) – the fact that the relatively minor £20M works to remove the freight constraint on that line was not funded via LUF, was for me puzzling
Chester Station Enhancement
Initial NWML works necessary to enable new NWML all stopper commuter services
SWML upgrade and Burns stations AND new services from Bristol Temple Meads to Cardiff/Swansea (also endorsed by Western Gateway)
as per an earlier conversation the current “RNEP” relief line upgrade does nothing for passengers or PT use, without the stations and services on the SWML it only benefits NR
OLE to Swansea & VoG line to Barry (And on Filton Bank in Bristol to BTM)..optimal Rolling Stock choices for the new services needs OLE from Swansea to BTM
First phase of the Swansea Metro (using SDL from Pontardulais via Neath to Swansea High Street)
Further expansion of South Wales Metro/CVL – and esp. essential further phases of Cardiff Crossrail (there may be an opportunity to link to Penarth services and free up some capacity at Cardiff Central)
Some initial measure to improve capacity & journey times on the Marches line (and extend further Ebbw Valley service to Abergavenny via Newport).

The NZ implications and WG targets, demand that we secure 40% increase in PT by 2030 – there is no way we can get there without the capital investment on the above(I’ll spare you my thoughts on bus). I also, like the Westminster Transport Committee, favour “a reduction in the road use discount”.

As important, all of the above projects can be associated with significant economic development and regeneration opportunities.

For example, I have talked informally in the past about relocating the DVLA from its car based and now dated office in Morriston, to a new (probably smaller footprint) site next to Neath station that will be better connected to the wider region via PT with the first phase of the Swansea Metro; the Borderlands 4tph to Liverpool proposal will also enhance the economic potential of the Wrexham Gateway and the broader Cardiff Crossrail project (beyond that initial small first section funded via Dept LU) could deliver the most mode shift and wider economic benefits of any scheme in Wales (I’ll also flag up again the need for DfT/NR to “fix” Cardiff West asap!)

I have and will continue to share my views above with WG, Welsh Ministers and their teams and encourage the provision of space for dialogue and a deal to be fermented. It was a similar set of circumstance that led to the WG/UK Government deal to fund the “South Wales Metro” nearly 10 years ago? If we could then, why not now?

Best Regards

Mark

Mark Barry Email to Western Gateway Board February 2023

All

Sorry I don’t have all relevant emails (esp Katherine’s ) – so please forward.

Arup have done a very good job in developing a Western Gateway Rail Vision to 2050 – this was based in part on my paper to the Western Gateway Board in 2021 and has taken much content re the rail schemes from TfW’s SWML Programme
Until last June I was formally helping (via CCR) Arup’s work and supporting James and Jo
Informally I have continued to do so.

Now I’d like to share some observations and make some suggestions.

The vast majority of the work to the early 2030s has and is being formally led and/or developed via TfW’s SWML Programme, which was based on earlier work esp. the Lord Burns South East Wales Transport Commission (which itself reflects earlier work like Metro Impact Study and SEWTA rail strategy over the previous 10-15 years)– that work has been reflected in the Western Gateway Rail Vision
NR have picked up and are progressing some of the more detailed schemes within this overall programme (eg the relief line upgrade and now I understand OLE to BTM via UCR funding?)
80% plus of the £700-800M enhancements required on the GWML and SWML to the early 2030s are in Wales ( so new stations, OLE to Swansea more BTM-Cardiff-Swansea services); the major piece of work over the border is electrification of the GWML from Filton to Bristol Temple Meads
The vast majority of any further new development funding (which is needed to augment WG and UCR commitments to date) for the SWML needs to be directed via TfW’s SWML Programme and with a focus to delivery by the early 2030s.

I have had multiple formal and informal meetings over the last few months (inc. with Rail officials and Ministers in both Cardiff Bay and Westminster as well as NR Board members) and would observe:

DfT budget is being squeezed by HS2 – they are looking to make cuts and not add projects – esp. a £700M programme for the SWML
The DfT/NR “RNEP” process is dysfunctional as regards Wales rail enhancements and will not generate the scale of funding we require
The current compromised non devolved rail status is a major impediment to progressing this work – and exposing the policy mismatch between UK Gov and WG (eg re road building, etc)
In the absence of a constitutional upgrade (cf rail powers in Scotland) we need a political deal/agreement between WG and UK Gov (not DfT) to “joint fund “ a SWML Programme to 2030(ish)
Certainly for Wales, the strategic leadership of the SWML scheme is now de facto being led by TfW not NR

My advice to Western Gateway is:

Not direct any further major funding to 2050 rail vision development once current phase is completed (apart from some work to improve WEI and/or decarbonisation benefits)
Instead focus on the stakeholder and especially the political engagement necessary to influence this government and more important the next UK government – look to the works of groups like Cogitamus and other parliamentary agents, etc
Promote the work of TfW’s SWML programme
To note I am also in discussion with Growth Track 360 who are advocating similar rail enhancement in NE Wales and Cheshire / Merseyside – and who also now acknowledge that DfT is very unlikely to fund the scale of schemes required – and that funding would have been far easier if rail powers and funding had already been devolved to Welsh Government
Properly engage with WG Climate Change and Transport Ministers and Snr Officials
I would also add that it is imperative that the UK Labour party commit to devolution of rail powers and funding to WG (And barnettisation of the £100Bn of English rail enhancement (like HS2, IRP, etc) in development
I would also add that in any new constitutional arrangements then the Western Gateway SNTB has far more powers, funding and accountability as well as strategic leadership capacity to work with WG/TfW on such cross border programme?
The issues we have in the UK (as I shared with Huw Merriman) is that major £000M decisions re economic infrastructure investment across the UK are made by probably less than ten people less than a mile from Westminster/Whitehall. This is clearly a broken model given that London has and continues to receive far more capital spending / capita than anywhere else in the UK.

Happy to discuss….

Mark

Letter from DfT to Mark Barry March 2023

Mark Barry Email to UK Gov Transport Ministers WG CabSec July 2024

FAO:
Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, Secretary of State for Transport
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill CBE, Minister of State (Rail Minister)
Ken Skates MS, Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Transport and North Wales
Jo Stevens MP, Secretary of State for Wales,
CC
Huw Thomas, Leader of Cardiff Council

Ministers

Can I bring to your attention what I and many others involved in rail/Metro in the Cardiff Capital Region, view as an urgent issue. That being the need to secure DfT/UK Gov development and capital enhancement funding for the “Cardiff West junction” tactical project and for this work to be combined with Network Rail’s Renewal work already planned for “Cardiff West Junction” early in 2028.

This enhancement will address a long-standing network bottleneck on the core Valley Lines which currently restricts services on the city line in the west of Cardiff to just 2tph. Without action a large populous part of Cardiff (see figure below re city and Coryton lines) will be denied “turn up and go” Metro services that will be available nearly everywhere else on the Metro network and leaves a big “Metro hole” in Cardiff itself. (and it is a well know transport planning rule that few people wait 30 mins for a 15 min trip!)

Academic data also demonstrates that elasticities of demand for increasing rail service frequency from 2tph to 4tph are more often greater than one in urban areas with sufficient catchment population as is the case in Cardiff (this is not always captured in rail planning and transport modelling which sometimes use an average elasticity figure)

This enhancement is also a critical path intervention that will enable further work to optimise/simplify planned CVL Metro services, deliver/operate 4tph on the Coryton line and enable the “Station link” to connect Crossrail Phase 1a to the west and the city line at Cardiff Central.

This is extremely frustrating as this issue has been known about for at least 15 years (noted in many earlier NR route studies and I set out the issues in my 2013 Metro Impact Study for Welsh Government!). In fact, an enhancement was originally included within the scope of NRs Cardiff Area Signalling and Renewal (CASR) project in 2014/5. However, the requirement to enable 4tph on the City line was “value engineered” out of scope by DfT/NR which in effect has handed an operational liability to TfW and CVL Metro services.

For me this exemplifies the constitutional failing of the current rail ecosystem where Wales, has little no say over DfT “England and Wales” enhancement funding, and where a scheme like Cardiff West, despite the best efforts of some officials, is just too “inconsequential” when viewed from Marsham street. Had rail been devolved this would have been done years ago. Now we have a piece of NR kit whose primary function is to support TfW’s CVL Metro services which are constrained without the enhancement.

To restate, this is a relatively modest enhancement of the track west of Cardiff Central (this is on NR managed track near the Canton depot) that will allow TfW to operate 4tph on the City Line in the west of the city at a cost I estimate of perhaps £30M. NR completed initial feasibility and set out two options in 2022.

There is also a clear opportunity now, to make best use of public funds as NR already have plans in place for a renewal programme at Cardiff West in 2028. It will be far more cost effective if additional funds can be found so that the enhancement to enable 4tph on the city line can be incorporated into the same programme and delivered at the same time (vs a more costly and disruptive further programme a few years later) and at lower cost.

There is funded scheme development work (tbc via NR) planned on Cardiff West this FY, however there is no formal commitment yet to progress from DfT/NR (which needs I believe £300—400k development funding now to match the funding put forward by WG and CCC) or any capital allocation.

This intervention is the critical path item for all the other Metro rail schemes the city has set out (CVL service patter optimisation, Station link, Coryton 4tph, new CVL Metro stations in Cardiff, etc) and needs UK Gov funding/commitment via the DfT and NR to progress ASAP.

If approval/funding is not secured in the next few weeks, it is likely that the opportunity to combine the enhancement with the renewal work will be lost. This for me would be an institutional and constitutional failing that we have to avoid (A subject I know you will be aware that I have written about and published formally and informally over the last few years). Given the new DfT Ministerial team has enormous knowledge and appreciation of rail issues in Wales I feel confident this can be addressed.

With this Cardiff West critical path measure addressed, plus delivery of some of the other schemes to improve Metro in Cardiff (esp. the Crossrail – and the vitally important Station link) there is no reason why the CVL cannot exceed the 30M PAX that is the case today on the Tyne and Wear Metro and so deliver major mode shift and decarbonisation benefits. They both have broadly similar 800M station population catchments; but CVL today is about 10~12M PAX . The additional CVL network capacity and flexibility will also likely improve vehicle utilisation and reduce subsidy per passenger and provide greater operational flexibility and redundancy. The wider economic benefits for Cardiff West and the other Cardiff Metro schemes, are also likely to be significant and will exceed those already set out in the Cardiff Crossrail Phase 1 Business Case.

Best Regards

Mark