Network
July 24th 2015
A bigger ‘northern powerhouse’ will dilute the brand
The ‘northern powerhouse’ has already suffered one major setback. The decision to delay the introduction of new electric rolling stock on trans-Pennine lines has caused much gnashing of teeth and rightly so, the whole powerhouse edifice stands on the principle of connectivity.
The logic of the northern powerhouse is that three of the five largest cities in England sit alongside each other, from Liverpool to the west through Manchester to Leeds in the east is a distance of just 64 miles as the crow flies. Just 29 miles to the south of Leeds is another major city, Sheffield, which is also only 32 miles east of Manchester.
Put this in a global context, if you start driving in Santa Monica at the far western side of Los Angeles and continue until there is a break in continuous urban development you will have travelled nearly 100 miles.
These large English cities are actually incredibly close to each other, and that should be a good thing. Combine the populations of these cities and consider the sheer size and diversity of the labour pool. In modern parlance, a genuine agglomeration economy exists. So why is the north not benefitting from the proximity of four of England’s largest cities? The answer: terrible connectivity.
The Pennines don’t help of course. The road link between Sheffield and Manchester is picturesque, but that is because it is a slow, windy road that gets closed regularly throughout the winter. For businesses wishing to access Manchester Airport, a mere 37 miles away, the rail journey takes around 90 minutes. In fact journey times between all the major conurbations are hopelessly slow by train and road and are often miserable due to the sub-standard rolling stock. Added to this, many of the stations on the trans-Pennine route have short platforms, hence short trains, hence hopeless overcrowding.
‘The northern powerhouse is an excellent mechanism to further the ambition of connecting four of the great cities of England together. However, it is not just funding that might undermine this, it is also the threat of geographical dilution’
The vision for the four cities should be for fast, environmentally friendly (not diesel) trains with long carriages making high-frequency trips between the cities and Manchester Airport, while using integrated ticketing. This should not be considered a wild ambition for the fourth largest economy in the world. However, the problem for the north is the formula used by civil servants to calculate the relative benefits from different transport investments. A key component of the formula is the level of local wages. This, not surprisingly, tilts investment projects towards London and the greater south east.
The northern powerhouse is an excellent mechanism to further the ambition of connecting four of the great cities of England together. However, it is not just funding that might undermine this, it is also the threat of geographical dilution. Cities outside of this ‘core’ don’t want to miss out. Lord O’Neil, the minister for the Northern Way, has been explaining how Stoke might benefit. No doubt Hull, York and Chester will have similar perceptions of missing out. And now the north east wants in on the northern powerhouse. But bend to this will, and the simple and logical concept at the heart of the powerhouse will lose focus, and so too would the credibility of the overall proposition.
This was the problem of the Prescott-inspired Northern Way. The boundaries kept moving outwards. The focus was lost. The three regional development agencies lost interest, and the budgets made available for the Northern Way would just be carved up with little obvious strategic intent. The element of the Northern Way which always made the most sense was the transport working groups. But compromised by artificially including the north east, which has little functional economic relationship with the ‘group of four’ cities, unsurprisingly a coherent agenda failed to emerge.
The branding may have changed, but the risk of dilution remains as strong as ever.
Completely disagree with the criticisms of the Northern Way; e.g. that “…boundaries kept moving outwards…’ the boundaries were always North East, North West and Yorkshire – in fact the boundaries were contained to the City Regions at the time despite numerous attempts by areas outwith the economic centres to ‘get in on the action’. ‘…The focus was lost …’ and ‘…The three regional development agencies lost interest…’ again not true – there was a very keen focus on evidencing the economic drivers of the North (including the North East) to central government in key areas only – this did not change. ‘….and the budgets made available for the Northern Way would just be carved up with little obvious strategic intent..’ true the RDAs did come to the table with an agenda for their own region – but the thrust of the Northern Way was research, led by a central (non RDA) team who directed the research in line with the priorities agreed at the start.
Your assertion that Transport was the biggest win for The Northern Way are closer to the truth – their recommendations on trans-pennine connectivity and High Speed Rail . And the idea that it was ‘…compromised by artificially including the north east, which has little functional economic relationship with the ‘group of four’ cities…’ may have some credibility – but this economic relationship was always hindered by the same poor connectivity you refer too (M62 , M69, trans-pennine rail).
The Northern Way’s aim was always to help government understand where strategic investment could help economic growth across the North of England – this was stopped when the Tories decided to abandon the RDAs. Worth noting is that the northern powerhouse would have little evidence to refer to had it not been for the efforts of the Northern Way.
And as for dilution – this will always occur when cities seek to leverage best advantage for themselves – regardless of who is leading the charge.