YP Letters: No devolution plan so far is equal to challenge North faces

Should Britain invest more money in the road network?Should Britain invest more money in the road network?
Should Britain invest more money in the road network?
From: Keith Johnston, Church Street, Carlton, Barnsley.

YOUR coverage of devolution consistently ignores the fact that the UK is effectively bankrupt, and that any investment in its infrastructure necessitates making strategic decisions that recognise this fact.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The type of devolution proposed by the Government does not choose to recognise this fact. It proposes the creation of small, inadequately financed units which are not able to take the necessary decisions. As a policy, it might be most aptly described as “divide and rule”.

The transport infrastructure policy is a good example of this. The Eurostat website gives the following figures for the percentage of traffic carried by road and rail in the UK. For freight; roads 87.3 per cent, rail 12.6 per cent. For passengers; cars 86 per cent, coaches and buses 5.8 per cent and rail 8.3 per cent.

This ignores the fact that the majority of the UK’s roads were not designed for the amount of traffic that they now carry or for the loads imposed by that traffic. It has also to be recognised that the roads have associated deteriorating highway structures. An example of these are the bridges and underpasses on the Leeds Inner Ring Road, which according to a previous report in your paper, require replacement due to degradation of their concrete. However, problems extend to major structures such as suspension bridges.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A representative example is the Forth Road Bridge. It should be noted that the original toll charges on this bridge provided for all possible maintenance costs, including main cable replacement, but when the Scottish Government abolished the toll it was replaced by an inadequate grant. A closer geographical example is Tinsley Viaduct whose most recent strengthening was completed in 2006. These works took over three years and cost £82m (14 times the original bridge building cost).

The competing claims for infrastructure finance are numerous and include defence, power generation and flood prevention. It is only fair to add that rail transport is one of them, as the recent refurbishment of the Forth Railway Bridge demonstrates.

No devolution scheme as yet proposed is appropriate for dealing with the problems it would face. The Northern Powerhouse has an appealing ring, but would have to include the whole of the North of England together with guaranteed revenues, such as Scotland enjoys, to be able to act effectively.