A nice headline but not one borne out by the facts.
The North East during the 80s and 90s got the Tyne and Wear metro for example.
The North West during the late 80s and 90s got the Manchester Metrolink and now suburban services towards Bolton, Preston and Liverpool are electric run. Liverpool is the only city where all the major cities have electric services to them.
Compare that with the West Midlands - Suburban services from Leamington and Stratford through Snow Hill and onto Kidderminster are still diesel run. The Chase Line has only been electrified in 2019. Midland Metro only opened in 1999 - and even now doesn't reach areas such as Birmingham Airport or Dudley.
So less of the 'woe is me' from the North - the West Mids probably has the best claim to being most neglected - it also has a higher population than most of the NW and definitely the NE and it is more economically productive than either.
Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool's urban conglomerates all have very similar quality of transport provision both on roads and rail. All are a
very long way behind where they need to be to compete with London and other European cities of their own size.
Newcastle has perhaps fallen slightly behind but is similar overall. Leeds has definitely fallen significantly behind all of the rest. But the differences between them are small compared to where they all
need to be. These are really very confected arguments about Birmingham being worse off than Newcastle.