To bridge England’s productivity gap, the government should plan the north’s housing and transport together

Houses and bicycles in Hulme, Greater Manchester. Image: Getty.

At a meeting with the Northern Metro Mayors last year, chancellor Philip Hammond said that increasing productivity in the north of England is vital to the government’s plans to boost economic growth.

The scale of that productivity challenge is vast. According to an excellent report from the Centre for Cities, cities in the South East of England are a whopping 44 per cent more productive than cities in other parts of the country. The think tank estimates that, if all British cities were as productive as those in the South East, the national economy would be over £200bn larger. 

To boost productivity levels across Britain, regions need to be able to attract and maintain the kind of highly skilled talent which companies seek when choosing where to set up their operating base. A recent Homes for the North report found that over the past decade 300,000 highly skilled workers had left the north. Retaining this talent will require both better transport links and more quality and affordable homes. The challenge is enormous. 

To be fair to the government, the aim of its modern industrial strategy is to tackle the productivity problem over the next 30 years, ensuring that all parts of Britain can participate in and prosper in what policy wonks have termed “the fourth industrial revolution” – the labour market of the future. 

While the fruits of this industrial strategy will not be felt immediately, the government has made some other encouraging moves which could help attract investment and talent to the north. 

The decision to establish combined authorities and regional mayors to allow local councils to pool responsibilities and receive specific functions from central government means locally elected and accountable leaders, not Whitehall, will be responsible for more decisions over housing and transport investment. 

It is also good news that Transport for the North (TfN) will become a statutory body. TfN is a true pan northern organisation which can help identify the infrastructure priorities that the region wants and needs. The government’s decision to create a sub-national transport body is welcome – although it does need budget responsibilities to be truly transformational.

Research from the Mace demonstrates the opportunities that TfN could grasp to deliver real economic growth across the north. The construction consultancy found that reducing average journey times by 60 seconds across the north of England could lead to £1bn a year extra in productivity gains. 

However, when it comes to housing in the north the picture is less rosy. While the Prime Minister has clearly made housing a political and economic priority, recent moves by the Government risk undermining the housebuilding efforts across the north.

The reason for this can be traced to a set of proposed changes the government put forward before Christmas on how local councils assess future housing need. The aim was to exert pressure on local authorities to increase the number of new homes they plan to build. Unfortunately the draft methodology is flawed. It focuses on councils using a new, backwards-looking methodology based on growth assumptions which reflect today’s problems rather than tomorrow’s aspirations.


Councils are not required to plan housing to match their plans for economic growth. Instead the new numbers will only require them to plan in accordance with what is in effect historic trends. If this seems counter-intuitive, hostile to aspiration and growth, it is because it is. As a result, thousands of homes have been shaved off local benchmarks in the north. The proposed changes effectively amount to an anti-northern bias and a potential cap on economic growth across the north. Common sense must prevail.

New quality housing for rent and for purchase – hand in hand with an upgraded transport system – could act as an economic boon to the northern economy. However, infrastructure investment is currently viewed in silos. Decisions over new or upgraded road and rail routes have to be made in conjunction with an assessment of how many new homes should be built as demand increases. Quite simply, if the necessary homes do not follow, there is a danger that infrastructure investment will be squandered. 

Improving infrastructure across the north could truly unleash the Northern Powerhouse. The further devolution of powers is vital. So too is unlocking the purse strings and giving local leaders the funding they require. Finally, the north needs a sub-national coordinating body – whether under the auspices of TfN or something else – which can deliver a coherent plan to deliver the investment we need in our railways and roads, energy infrastructure, as well the hundreds of thousands of new homes the region requires over the coming decades. 

If the chancellor seizes this agenda then the government’s industrial strategy really could work in the interests of the north.

Mark Henderson is chair of Homes for the North.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook

 
 
 
 

Here are eight thoughts on TfL’s proposed cuts to London’s bus network

A number 12 bus crosses Westminster Bridge. Image: Getty.

In 2016, the urbanism blog City Observatory had a modest proposal for how American cities could sort out their transport systems: “Londonize”.

Its theory, the name of which referenced another popular urbanism blog, Copenhagenize, was that the key plank of Transport for London’s success was something that even transport nerds did not consider very sexy: its buses.

Though the Tube might get more glamorous press, London’s bus service really is impressively massive: It carries roughly 2.3bn passengers per year—much more than the Tube (1.3bn), close to the New York City subway (2.8bn), and nearly half as much as every bus service in America combined (5.1bn), while serving a population roughly 1/35 as large.

How has TfL done this? By making its bus network high frequency, reliable, relatively easy to understand and comprehensive. We rarely talk about this, because the tube map is far more fun – but the reason it’s so difficult to fall off the transport network in Greater London is because you’re never that far from a bus.

Given all that, we should probably talk about TfL’s plans to rethink – and in most cases, cut – as many as 36 different central London bus services over the next few months.

I’m not going to rehash details of the changes on which TfL is consulting from next month: there are just too many of them, and anyway it’s someone else’s scoop. The story was originally broken by Darryl Chamberlain over on 853 London; there’s also some fascinating analysis on Diamond Geezer’s blog. You should read both of those stories, though preferably not before you’ve finished reading this one.

Before offering my own analysis of the proposed changes, though, I should offer a few examples. More than a dozen routes are facing a trim: the 59 from King’s Cross back to Euston, the 113 from Oxford Circle to Marble Arch, the 171 from Holborn all the way down to Elephant & Castle and so on. A couple – the 10, the 48, the C2, and at most times the special routemaster version of the 15 – are being withdrawn altogether.

On, and one new route is planned – the 311, from Fulham Broadway to Oxford Circus. This will help plug some of the cuts to the 11, 19 and 22.

So, what does all this mean? Some thoughts:

1) This might not quite be as awful as it initially sounds

TfL says that demand for buses has fallen by around 10 per cent in London in recent years. It predicts it’ll fall further when Crossrail opens, as passengers switch to the new line, or to the tube routes relieved by the new line. So: the idea of taking some unwanted capacity out of the system is not, in itself, terrible.

Striping out unnecessary buses should also improve air quality in some of London’s worst pollution hot spots, and improve traffic flow, hopefully speeding up journeys on those buses that remain. 

A map from the presentation in which TfL explained its plans, showing the reduction in bus numbers on key arteries. Hilariously, notes Darryl Chamberlain, “It no longer produces its own maps, so has had to use one prepared by a bus enthusiast”.

The plans might even free up buses and staff to increase frequencies in outer London where demand hasn’t fallen – though these plans won’t be unveiled until next year and, for reasons I’ll come to below, I’ll believe it when we see it.

2) For many bus users, a lot of these changes will pass almost unnoticed

By my count, I use nine of the affected routes with any regularity – but only three of the changes are things that I’m likely to be at all inconvenienced by. Most of the changes either affect a part of the route I don’t take, or one where there are easy, and pain free, alternatives.

This is anecdotal, obviously – perhaps I’m just lucky. But my suspicion is that a lot of these changes will go unnoticed by most passengers. It’s only the sheer number of them happening at once that makes this look like a big deal.

3) The Hopper fare makes this easier...

Once upon a time, if you had to switch buses, you had to pay a second fare. This isn’t true of journeys on the tube or railways – and since bus passengers have, on average, less money than tube passengers, it amounted to a pretty unfair tax on poorer Londoners.

But in January, in what is probably his most notable policy achievement of his two years in office so far, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan changed the rules. Now you can take as many buses as you want within an hour, for a single fare: that means you can switch buses without paying a penalty.

That will have made it easier for TfL to cut routes back: replacing a direct bus journey with one that requires a change no longer means imposing a financial penalty on passengers.


4) ...but not that easy

That’s about where the good news stops, though – because there are reasons other than cost why people prefer direct bus routes. Needing to change buses will be difficult for anyone with any form of mobility impairment, for example. Even for those of us lucky enough not to fall into that category, it’ll be annoying: it’s just easier to stay in one seat for 40 minutes than to get turfed off and have to fight for a new one halfway through.

More than that, from the passengers’ point of view, excess capacity feels quite good a lot of the time: it means your bus may well be nice and empty. Reducing the number of buses along those key corridors will also make those that remain more crowded.

5) The motive is almost certainly financial

Another of Sadiq Khan’s big policy promises was to freeze fares. He made this promise at a time when central government is massively reducing the financial support it gives TfL (the work, Chamberlain notes, of Evening Standard editor George Osborne, back when he was chancellor). And the Hopper fare, while a great idea in many ways, means a further reduction in income.

So: TfL is scrambling for cash: this is why I remain cynical about those new outer London bus routes. I would be amazed if money wasn’t a motivation here, not least because...

6) TfL thinks no one will notice

Any attempt to reduce tube frequencies, let alone close a station, would result in uproar. Hashtag campaigners! Angry people pointing at things in local newspapers! Damning reports on the front of the Evening Standard from the bloke who made it happen!

Buses, though? Their routes change, slightly, all the time. And do you really notice whether your local route comes every 10 minutes or every 12? That’s not to mention the fact that bus passengers, as previously noted, tend to be poorer – and so, less vocal – than tube passengers.

So cuts, and the savings they bring, are much easier to sneak through. TfL probably would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling bloggers.

Although...

7) Scrapping the C2 might be a mistake

The C2 runs from Parliament Hill, through Kentish Town and Camden to Oxford Circus. In other words, it links north London, where a lot of journalists live, to the offices of the BBC and Buzzfeed.

As occasional New Statesman writer James Ball notes, this is probably not the easiest route to quietly shelve.

8) None of this is set in stone

The consultation doesn’t even begin until next month and then will run for six weeks – so all these plans may yet be forgotten. We shall see.

Anyway – here’s Darryl Chamberlain’s original scoop, and here’s some detailed analysis on Diamond Geezer. Please support your local bloggers by reading them.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.