Having looked at some of the strengths and weaknesses of transport policy for Wales things now turn to geography.
In today’s piece:
- Where do weak points and gaps exist in the Welsh transport network?
- Is Wales poorly connected to the rest of Great Britain and Ireland? If so, what connections could be prioritised for improvement?
- What other international links ought to be prioritised for improvement (with one eye on independence)?
After another break, the run-in (starting August 21st) will consist of the final five articles looking at specific transport modes including road transport policies, where new railway stations should/could be built, what railways could/should be reopened, where bus rapid transit could work, other policy changes with independence, international comparisons etc. I’ll save that for then.
This one is more general, focusing on transport corridors with a national or regional impact and it’ll all inform those final five articles.
That’s not because transport at local level is less important, it’s more because I’ll be here all day if I had to include it. There could be some bits and pieces I’ve missed out too.
Brace yourselves for a lot of maps.
Physical barriers: topography, geology & hydrology
It’s difficult to build good overland transport links when mountains are in the way; hence why regional transport patterns in Wales have traditionally been along an east-west axis (or north-south in the case of the Valleys).
Railways usually need flat or very marginal inclines. Roads are more flexible, but high-capacity roads like motorways or dual carriageways need decent geometry – you can’t have sharp corners or dips if traffic is moving above 40-50mph. The solution is either serious groundworks engineering (i.e. cuttings, embankments – as on the rebuilt stretch of the A465 through the Clydach Gorge), or tunnels – both of which are pricey and need heavy projected use to justify the cost.
The ground itself may not be suitable for particular forms of overland transport due to underlying geology or water courses. There’s usually an engineering solution to most problems, but building across marshy land is going to be a lot more difficult and expensive than building across relatively flat land with good drainage.
Population density & sparsity
It’s often far more difficult and expensive to provide public transport (in particular) to places with low population densities because of the low number of potential passengers and journeys.
There’s some debate about what the population density threshold would be for different forms of public transport. Most of Wales would probably struggle to justify a regular bus service (let alone a heavy rail link) based on standard transport economics.
That doesn’t mean sparsely populated areas shouldn’t be connected to the public transport network in the same way as urban areas or are somehow less deserving of investment in things like roads.
If anything, sparsity and long distances lend themselves towards more roads being built, as these communities are far more likely to need a car just to be able to carry out daily activities than someone living in the suburbs of Cardiff.
So, politically, it’s more justifiable for rural communities to push against suspending road projects or policies prioritising modal shift (Part III). They quite literally have no other choice but to drive because the alternatives are either impractical (walking & cycling) or would require heavy subsidies which have already been withdrawn in some cases (bus and rail).
Routine travel & commuter patterns
Â
Most travel in Wales will be within a given region – usually statistically defined as a “travel to work area” (above). It’s not only for work; it’ll include most routine journeys for leisure, retail, essential public services and education.
The core transport network will usually define these commuting and daily travel patterns. In some places like the northeast (Chester & Flint, Wrexham & Whitchurch), it’ll mean a lot more routine cross-border travel than in the south (perhaps with the exception of eastern Monmouthshire).
The issue is whether the transport network reinforces routine travel patterns and, therefore, influences economic and planning decisions. That means some corridors won’t be served particularly well – such as cross-valley links or along the west coast.
These corridors – if properly developed – could otherwise promote more localised economic growth, improve local supply chains for the foundational economy and offer more cultural/social opportunities.
Lack of capital funding & cost-benefit analyses
Wales has a limited pot of money to spend on new infrastructure each year (around £1billion), but that has to cover everything: new schools, hospitals, local authority projects and transport.
So politicians and civil servants have to be very picky about what they spend it on. An independent nation would be able to borrow to cover any shortfall – and borrowing to cover capital expenditure is much more attractive than covering day-to-day spending – but Wales’ powers there are capped and limited within the UK.
The most common mathematical formula used to determine how much value a piece of new infrastructure would bring is a “cost-benefit analysis”. This works out how much a new project would add to the economy for every £1 spent.
If spending on a proposed project exceeds the perceived benefit to the economy, then it’s usually rejected. Given all of the other factors above, “nation-building” projects will normally come out worse in the analysis than a more local project that has in-built high demand. That often entrenches regional differences instead of helping to bridge them.
