Under-represented and under-funded: London politicians can’t keep ignoring the south-west

The most southerly point of the UK. Confusingly also known as the North of the South. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Long before England was divided over Brexit, commentators argued about the political differences between the North and South. For southerners, dragons lurk any further than Watford; while terrible beer and folk with the fortitude of Kenneth Williams in a Carry-On film await northerners venturing below Birmingham.

People mostly know when something newsworthy happens in Wales, while Northern Ireland is currently getting its 15 minutes of fame, and Nicola Sturgeon is straight on the phone the minute Scotland slips out of the news.

But what about the south-west, the ‘North’ of the South. A place, according to YouGov, with a regional identity as strong as Yorkshire’s.

For most Londoners, the south-west is one of two things. You’ve got Bristol – a (slightly) more affordable, yet still trendy, smaller version of London – and the Cotswolds, both of which provide many a Kensington resident with a weekend retreat. Then everywhere else is a patchwork of fields and muddled pirate/farmer accents.

Unfortunately, these both leave the south-west somewhat overlooked in London’s political circles.

Traditionally the 258-mile stretch between Land’s End and Chipping Campden in the region’s north was something of a Lib Dem stronghold. In 2010 the south-west had 15 yellow seats, 36 blue, and just four Labour. Despite national losses in 2017, Conservative seats rose to 47 and Labour climbed to seven, leaving the Lib Dems with just one MP – the newly-elected Wera Hobhouse in Bath.


Devolution hasn’t been fruitful. Although in recent years Bristol has been thriving, first under former mayor George Ferguson and then his incumbent successor Labour’s Marvin Rees, there’s few else championing the interests of the south-west to Whitehall. Inexplicably the role of the West of England’s metro mayor, Tim Bowles, also covers Bristol, along with bits of South Gloucestershire and north-east Somerset.

Rivalry in the region is strong – don’t confuse a Bristolian and Gloucestershire accent* in the presence of natives – yet the policy problems are shared.

Regional income per head is higher than in parts of the North, but so are house prices. Yet it’s often overlooked that market prices in Bristol and Bath, where young professionals might look to escape the capital, skew the numbers.

Cornwall is one of the ten poorest regions in the EU, with pockets of Gloucestershire and Somerset not far behind. Despite often being forgotten by our urban-based media, rural poverty is a real problem, with economic and cultural opportunities thin on the ground.

Transport only makes the problem worse. I grew up in a town 20 miles from Bristol, not much more than half an hour in the car. Yet the train takes over an hour, with the Cam and Dursley train station an inexplicable five miles out of the town. Bus services might come once a week, but they aren’t guaranteed to bring you back. Cuts to local government have made many services unviable. It's little wonder that in Dursley JK Rowling found inspiration for Harry Potter’s cruel relatives.

Tourism offers a local economy boost; people come from all over the world to enjoy Somerset Scrumpy, Cornish coastline and Cotswold cottages. But weather on the western front is an unreliable business partner, and second homes push up living costs for locals.

The south-west gets the investment its national presence deserves. Whilst local politicians are trying to deliver for local people, there’s been a lack of join-up between its MPs.

The Lib Dems struggle to marry their liberal pro-EU messages with the more conservative region, whilst Labour doesn’t have the support outside of cities to recognise its problems. Media darling Jacob-Rees Mogg has hardly used the national spotlight to find solutions for those struggling in his North East Somerset constituency. Liam Fox prefers to make the case for investment in the Philippines than Portishead.

Devolution has struggled to appeal. That London policymakers tried to lump Cornwall and Devon together says it all. There is also a deep-seated indifference to politics; Brenda from Bristol isn’t the only one who’s had enough.

But the south-west needs a champion. Marvin Rees could do more to talk about the importance of connections throughout the south-west to benefit both Bristol and its surroundings. Theresa May could even use investment in the region to sure up her reputation with Tory backbenchers.

As local press dwindles, national commentators should take more trips down the M4 and M5 and find out not everything in the UK has to be binary between North and South, Leave and Remain.

*Gloucestershire accents are slower and lower. Bristolians pepper rapid speech with phrases not heard anywhere else in the world.

 
 
 
 

Uncertainty is the new normal: the case for resilience in infrastructure

Members of the New York Urban Search and Rescue Task Force One help evacuate people from their homes in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in September 2018. Image: Getty.

The most recent international report on climate change paints a picture of disruption to society unless there are drastic and rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. And although it’s early days, some cities and municipalities are starting to recognise that past conditions can no longer serve as reasonable proxies for the future.

This is particularly true for America’s infrastructure. Highways, water treatment facilities and the power grid are at increasing risk to extreme weather events and other effects of a changing climate.

The problem is that most infrastructure projects, including the Trump administration’s infrastructure revitalisation plan, typically ignore the risks of climate change.

In our work researching sustainability and infrastructure, we encourage and are starting to shift toward designing man-made infrastructure systems with adaptability in mind.

Designing for the past

Infrastructure systems are the front line of defense against flooding, heat, wildfires, hurricanes and other disasters. City planners and citizens often assume that what is built today will continue to function in the face of these hazards, allowing services to continue and to protect us as they have done so in the past. But these systems are designed based on histories of extreme events.

Pumps, for example, are sized based on historical precipitation events. Transmission lines are designed within limits of how much power they can move while maintaining safe operating conditions relative to air temperatures. Bridges are designed to be able to withstand certain flow rates in the rivers they cross. Infrastructure and the environment are intimately connected.

Now, however, the country is more frequently exceeding these historical conditions and is expected to see more frequent and intense extreme weather events. Said another way, because of climate change, natural systems are now changing faster than infrastructure.

How can infrastructure systems adapt? First let’s consider the reasons infrastructure systems fail at extremes:

  • The hazard exceeds design tolerances. This was the case of Interstate 10 flooding in Phoenix in fall 2014, where the intensity of the rainfall exceeded design conditions.

  • During these times there is less extra capacity across the system: When something goes wrong there are fewer options for managing the stressor, such as rerouting flows, whether it’s water, electricity or even traffic.

  • We often demand the most from our infrastructure during extreme events, pushing systems at a time when there is little extra capacity.

Gradual change also presents serious problems, partly because there is no distinguishing event that spurs a call to action. This type of situation can be especially troublesome in the context of maintenance backlogs and budget shortfalls which currently plague many infrastructure systems. Will cities and towns be lulled into complacency only to find that their long-lifetime infrastructure are no longer operating like they should?

Currently the default seems to be securing funding to build more of what we’ve had for the past century. But infrastructure managers should take a step back and ask what our infrastructure systems need to do for us into the future.


Agile and flexible by design

Fundamentally new approaches are needed to meet the challenges not only of a changing climate, but also of disruptive technologies.

These include increasing integration of information and communication technologies, which raises the risk of cyberattacks. Other emerging technologies include autonomous vehicles and drones as well as intermittent renewable energy and battery storage in the place of conventional power systems. Also, digitally connected technologies fundamentally alter individuals’ cognition of the world around us: consider how our mobile devices can now reroute us in ways that we don’t fully understand based on our own travel behavior and traffic across a region.

Yet our current infrastructure design paradigms emphasise large centralized systems intended to last for decades and that can withstand environmental hazards to a preselected level of risk. The problem is that the level of risk is now uncertain because the climate is changing, sometimes in ways that are not very well-understood. As such, extreme events forecasts may be a little or a lot worse.

Given this uncertainty, agility and flexibility should be central to our infrastructure design. In our research, we’ve seen how a number of cities have adopted principles to advance these goals already, and the benefits they provide.

A ‘smart’ tunnel in Kuala Lumpur is designed to supplement the city’s stormwater drainage system. Image: David Boey/creative commons.

In Kuala Lampur, traffic tunnels are able to transition to stormwater management during intense precipitation events, an example of multifunctionality.

Across the U.S., citizen-based smartphone technologies are beginning to provide real-time insights. For instance, the CrowdHydrology project uses flooding data submitted by citizens that the limited conventional sensors cannot collect.

Infrastructure designers and managers in a number of U.S. locations, including New York, Portland, Miami and Southeast Florida, and Chicago, are now required to plan for this uncertain future – a process called roadmapping. For example, Miami has developed a $500m plan to upgrade infrastructure, including installing new pumping capacity and raising roads to protect at-risk oceanfront property.

These competencies align with resilience-based thinking and move the country away from our default approaches of simply building bigger, stronger or more redundant.

Planning for uncertainty

Because there is now more uncertainty with regard to hazards, resilience instead of risk should be central to infrastructure design and operation in the future. Resilience means systems can withstand extreme weather events and come back into operation quickly.

Microgrid technology allows individual buildings to operate in the event of a broader power outage and is one way to make the electricity system more resilient. Image: Amy Vaughn/U.S. Department of Energy/creative commons.

This means infrastructure planners cannot simply change their design parameter – for example, building to withstand a 1,000-year event instead of a 100-year event. Even if we could accurately predict what these new risk levels should be for the coming century, is it technically, financially or politically feasible to build these more robust systems?

This is why resilience-based approaches are needed that emphasise the capacity to adapt. Conventional approaches emphasise robustness, such as building a levee that is able to withstand a certain amount of sea level rise. These approaches are necessary but given the uncertainty in risk we need other strategies in our arsenal.

For example, providing infrastructure services through alternative means when our primary infrastructure fail, such as deploying microgrids ahead of hurricanes. Or, planners can design infrastructure systems such that when they fail, the consequences to human life and the economy are minimised.

The Netherlands has changed its system of dykes and flood management in certain areas to better sustain flooding.

This is a practice recently implemented in the Netherlands, where the Rhine delta rivers are allowed to flood but people are not allowed to live in the flood plain and farmers are compensated when their crops are lost.

Uncertainty is the new normal, and reliability hinges on positioning infrastructure to operate in and adapt to this uncertainty. If the country continues to commit to building last century’s infrastructure, we can continue to expect failures of these critical systems, and the losses that come along with them.

The Conversation

Mikhail Chester, Associate Professor of Civil, Environmental, and Sustainable Engineering, Arizona State University; Braden Allenby, President's Professor and Lincoln Professor of Engineering and Ethics, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona State University, and Samuel Markolf, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Urban Resilience to Extremes Sustainability Research Network, Arizona State University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.