South Wales 'Metro' updates

[Llanigraham]

Manchester is the other obvious one (if you're talking comparable DMU railways), and the Merseyrail Link line (Northern Line). The layout is classic S-Bahn and you'll find it in Germany all over the place.

Sorry, but neither of those areas are comparable with the geographic, social or economic area that is Cardiff.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Would you potentially be able to do something like the narrow gauge Swiss lines do, involving very limited street running (basically a very long level crossing without barriers) and a separate forecourt station?

Example at Brig:

(I think the Swiss narrow gauge lines hold quite a few lessons for the way UK tram-train type services could work)

This is the train-tram idea. This isn't street running like a tram, where trams act essentially like buses. While the train is driving on the same surface as the street, the actual interaction between train and other road users is minimised. Heavy rail standards would require full barrier separation and level crossings so that other traffic can't accidentally stray onto the tracks.

I'm basing my predictions on what we know - which is the maps and reports released on the TfW website. These maps and reports clearly indicate LR conversion north of Queen St. HR diesel for Barry, the Vale and everywhere else. And a plan to make commuting from Penarth even more difficult than it is now by forcing the Penarth line onto the streets of Grangetown.

Lines on a map, yes. My firm expectation is that the scheme will be value-engineered to minimise street running in Cardiff in this stage. The cost of putting up 750V DC wires to Penarth along the HR line would be a fraction of the cost of adding street running, and could be delivered far earlier.

You cannot assume that there will be 100m doubled up tram-trains chosen by looking at a planning application for a 'rolling stock' depot. These might be standard trams. They might be tram-trains. Or more unlikely, they could be trains.
http://gov.wales/docs/det/publications/170922-rail-services-of-the-future-brochure-en.pdf That brochure outlining the Welsh Govt's vague 'vision' for rail services in Wales and the Metro again emphasises improvements north of Queen Street (not Central), which suggests the network will be split.
Most of your post is based on what you think would be the ideal thing to happen - Metro services beyond the Core VL being tram-train. From what has been released into the public domain so far, there's no indication of that happening. All the indications point to the Core VL going over to trams, split off from everything else, with HR diesel elsewhere.

Until anything else is confirmed, this is what we have to assume is planned.

You're assuming a lot of things from these few same released documents.

What we can see in the Taffs Well depot application cannot be anything less than a LR depot. The curve radii in are simply far too small for a HR-derived train design. The document says in clear text that the rolling stock will be 50m long. The vehicle placeholders are entirely consistent with the rest of the information - there are 9 sections across 5 bogies.

We can also see that the eastern end of the station will be demolished to make room for the junction works. However, they're then going to the effort of replacing that lost section with an extension to the west. Why would they bother spending millions retaining the full 100m length of the platforms, if the maximum train length is going to be 50m? This is on the core Valley Lines section. Either the 50m sets will be doubled up in service to form 100m sets, or >50m HR passenger services will continue calling at Taffs Well station. There's no need to extend platforms for the sake of occasional retained rail freight. If HR services continued to call at Taffs Well, then the LR takeover of the 'Core Valley Lines' is clearly not complete.

 

[gareth950]

In Cardiff the current Valley Lines already access the core of the city centre in a number of places. Grangetown, Ninian Park, Central, Queen St, Cathays. Nowhere in Cardiff city centre is more than a 10 minute walk from one of these stations. They already efficiently run cross city.

So what purpose does digging up the streets in the centre of Cardiff for on street running actually serve?
It cant be to provide better access as HR already ticks that box.
It cant be to create a cross city link as it already exists.

Not forgetting that on match and event days at the Millennium Stadium (such as today) the city centre is shut to all traffic, including buses, as the city centre becomes fully pedestrianised. So the only way to get across the city centre is by the HR network, hence why it is such a popular way to get into town on days such as today.

And to anyone who says 'well exceptions can be made for tram running', you clearly have never tried to walk through Cardiff city centre when there is a capacity crowd event on at the stadium.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is the train-tram idea. This isn't street running like a tram, where trams act essentially like buses. While the train is driving on the same surface as the street, the actual interaction between train and other road users is minimised. Heavy rail standards would require full barrier separation and level crossings so that other traffic can't accidentally stray onto the tracks.

FWIW this idea is something I'd like to see applied to branch lines like the Conwy Valley to bring down costs but up quality and acccessibility. You could have things like fully open automatic level crossings (for which the train has to slow so it can stop in the distance it can see to be clear), remove footbridges etc and maybe even go for low floor/platforms to reduce cost on lines that already have mostly low ones, though that depends on whether a low section could be provided at the terminus for it. With the floor height adapted to platforms, full accessibility too. A kind of pseudo-tram.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Not forgetting that on match and event days at the Millennium Stadium (such as today) the city centre is shut to all traffic, including buses, as the city centre becomes fully pedestrianised. So the only way to get across the city centre is by the HR network, hence why it is such a popular way to get into town on days such as today.

And to anyone who says 'well exceptions can be made for tram running', you clearly have never tried to walk through Cardiff city centre when there is a capacity crowd event on at the stadium.

Of course you can turn around your trams short of the city centre but terminating instead of cross city running reduces capacity and you need your system running to maximum capacity on match days....................

 

[MarkyT]

FWIW this idea is something I'd like to see applied to branch lines like the Conwy Valley to bring down costs but up quality and acccessibility. You could have things like fully open automatic level crossings (for which the train has to slow so it can stop in the distance it can see to be clear), remove footbridges etc and maybe even go for low floor/platforms to reduce cost on lines that already have mostly low ones, though that depends on whether a low section could be provided at the terminus for it. With the floor height adapted to platforms, full accessibility too. A kind of pseudo-tram.

Agreed, and additional or relocated passing places might then be affordable at stations with access via locally monitored pedestrian level crossings rather than the exorbitantly expensive fully accessible bridges with ramps or lifts that have become customary. As to platform height, it appears the current crop of lighter European low floor MU trains can be supplied easily with 915mm floor height, as proposed for Anglia and Merseyrail for level boarding. I remember last time I travelled on the Conwy Valley (decades ago), some of the platforms on the line were extremely low already!

 

[Llanigraham]

FWIW this idea is something I'd like to see applied to branch lines like the Conwy Valley to bring down costs but up quality and acccessibility. You could have things like fully open automatic level crossings (for which the train has to slow so it can stop in the distance it can see to be clear), remove footbridges etc and maybe even go for low floor/platforms to reduce cost on lines that already have mostly low ones, though that depends on whether a low section could be provided at the terminus for it. With the floor height adapted to platforms, full accessibility too. A kind of pseudo-tram.

And how would you then run the money making, tourist supporting, rail tours that often use the line?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, and additional or relocated passing places might then be affordable at stations with access via locally monitored pedestrian level crossings rather than the exorbitantly expensive fully accessible bridges with ramps or lifts that have become customary. As to platform height, it appears the current crop of lighter European low floor MU trains can be supplied easily with 915mm floor height, as proposed for Anglia and Merseyrail for level boarding. I remember last time I travelled on the Conwy Valley (decades ago), some of the platforms on the line were extremely low already!

Most of them have been raised. Though on lines where that's primarily done using Harrington humps, it might actually be worth removing them and specifying a low floor unit meaning level boarding from all doors.

 

[furnessvale]

Sorry, but neither of those areas are comparable with the geographic, social or economic area that is Cardiff.

I don't wish to flame things, but official statistics show that Greater Manchester has a higher GVA than the whole of Wales, let alone Cardiff in isolation.

 

[Llanigraham]

I don't wish to flame things, but official statistics show that Greater Manchester has a higher GVA than the whole of Wales, let alone Cardiff in isolation.

So my statement is correct then.
And yet people still want to compare them.

 

[Dai Corner]

I don't wish to flame things, but official statistics show that Greater Manchester has a higher GVA than the whole of Wales, let alone Cardiff in isolation.

And a similar population (around 3m)

 

[NotATrainspott]

So my statement is correct then.
And yet people still want to compare them.

What do you want people to compare Cardiff with then? London? Stoke-on-Trent? Are you really arguing that Cardiff is sui generis?

Saying that Cardiff is incomparable, and thus it must have an HR rail system, is a bit of a nonsense. You can look at the geographical, social and economic factors and make a perfectly valid judgement that cities with similar factors have successfully invested in light rail technology.

 

[Llanigraham]

No, I am not arguing that Cardiff is unique. However what I have said several times is that it has a situation geographically, socially and economically that is different to Manchester and other places, so trying to compare them is unwise, and certainly trying to parachute ANY transport system in without taking into account these differences is frankly nonsensical, especially geographically.

I would also suggest there are people making comments here who actually know little if anything about Cardiff, and certainly haven't looked at a map of the city. That is supported by some of the incorrect comments made, as I and others have had to point out.

 

[daodao]

What do you want people to compare Cardiff with then? London? Stoke-on-Trent? Are you really arguing that Cardiff is sui generis?

Saying that Cardiff is incomparable, and thus it must have an HR rail system, is a bit of a nonsense. You can look at the geographical, social and economic factors and make a perfectly valid judgement that cities with similar factors have successfully invested in light rail technology.

Light rail trains, as used on the Tyne & Wear Metro, may be acceptable, with HR trains allowed to run on the same lines, but trams would not be appropriate. The existing VL network, including the HR alignments through Cardiff, needs to be retained, with the lines to Penarth, Barry Island and Radyr via Danescourt kept as part of the network. The VL network is already essentially separated from the SWML - street running in Cardiff is highly undesirable and unnecessary as the existing alignments serve Cardiff city centre well. Electrification, whether DC or 25kV AC, is highly desirable to improve acceleration from the frequent stops.

 

[B&I]

What's so controversial about natural attrition? LR staff will get paid less. People do not work forever. If all existing drivers keep their pay, then over 30-40 years the average pay per staff member will go down. I really cannot see how this is that difficult a concept to grasp. If HR is retained, wages will either stay static, or increase. More money, for the same or less amount of transportation.



Now you're just being obtuse. Freight on the network would be relatively limited. Level crossings will only be permitted on lines not kept cleared for HR, which will be most of them.



Why didn't we see expansion? Because these were largely new lines. There's a fairly large funding difference between building a 'speculative' new line and taking one off of HR and running it instead. The choice available to government was to spend millions on a new tram line plus services, or essentially do nothing. For the South Wales Metro, the choice will be LR or keeping an HR service. There's no option to 'do nothing'. The 'do nothing' option is really an option with little upfront cost but significant ongoing costs, while the alternative is significant upfront cost but little ongoing costs. Now that tram-train technology is a commodity, it'll be even easier than before to sort out conversions.



The alternative is that all of the Valleys will remain a 1980's DMU suburban railway. The idea of a consistently 4-6 car railway run by modern DMUs or EMUs is an economic fantasy.



What about the people for whom the HR Valley Lines service doesn't currently work? It's fantastically easy to point out small numbers of people who might lose out from an idea. It's much harder to see all of the people who aren't currently well served, and who could benefit from the changes.

It is deeply frustrating to see posters make points and claims based on the idea that LR and HR are non-overlapping magisteria and never the twain shall meet. That's simply not credible today looking at real-world networks comparable to South Wales. Seriously, look at RandstadRail in the Netherlands. It has everything from buses to high-floor metros, and everything in between. The fact that some of their vehicles are fitted with track brakes and indicators doesn't mean they are not used on grade-separated tracks in urban areas.

[/QUOTE]


What are the actual improvements that passengers will see if HR is converted to LR in South Wales? Your key argument seems to be that it is necessary / desirable because of cost savings, rather than because of any better quality service which will come about.

 

[B&I]

An idea wholly predicated on the idea that there's an inseparable barrier between LR and HR, and that train operations cannot pass across infrastructure owner/controller boundaries.

100m train-trams cannot run on the streets of Cardiff. They can get away with level crossings, but they cannot drive along city centre streets. The only practical way of adding brand new LR-dedicated platforms to Cardiff Central would be to do street running. If 100m sets can't run in the streets, and are going to run, then they're going to use the existing platforms. The doubled sets will act like slightly narrower versions of the Merseyrail 777s.



Option 1: Some passenger services around Cardiff are handed over to a LR operator. A few remaining services which depend slightly more on sharing the mainline are kept essentially as-is.
Option 2: All trains are kept essentially as-is.

These are the options available. Not going ahead with the LR work isn't magically going to improve the case for work on the lines that aren't covered. Because non-conversion means higher operational costs, the firm likelihood is that the remaining HR services would actually be worse without LR conversion.



I asked you how much of CASR spend consisted of renewals, and how much was the actual improvements. There is absolutely no point banging on about CASR if the expenditure was unavoidable. Unless significant amounts of money were spent deliberately and only so that certain HR-only improvements were possible, there's nothing to talk about.

You know why the South Wales Metro idea is so appealing to Cardiff Bay? Because they know the transport system in South Wales isn't currently good enough, and that HR is simply technologically and economically unsuited for the region. This isn't Lyle Lanley and a Monorail. There's nothing about the South Wales Metro which would make the people of the Randstad feel uncomfortable.



Governments have essentially unlimited ability to borrow money as capital. The problem lies in current expenditure, as borrowing to fund day-to-day spending on public services presents more problems. Why do governments have so much money available to plough into shiny new super-hospitals and council buildings, rather than the 'cheap' option of just refurbishing existing ones? Because that high upfront capital cost is justified by the operational savings later on. The savings are the return on investment for that initial capital. If there are lot of savings to be made, the return on investment is high. When ROI is high enough, it is economically more prudent for the government to borrow money now to take advantage of those savings.

It's not an ideological thing, it's something that is clear as day on spreadsheets and in budgets at all levels of government spending. The reason the bond markets worry about stereotypical left-wing governments is not the act of borrowing per se, but that this borrowing will not be financially prudent and will damage the economy and/or the government's ability to pay it back. The bond markets love it when governments borrow to efficiently build clear-cut good investments like new bridges, since they perceive it as actually improving the government's ability to pay loans back. The problematic thing for governments is that there's lots of spending opportunities which might be politically convenient, or even necessary, which don't result in the financial situation improving. Lots of shiny things various politicians or voters might like don't actually have a good financial case to back them.

The first 'extensions' of the LR system would be taking over existing HR services. If nothing is done, these services will continue running, and continuing to lose money. If the LR savings are more than the interest and opportunity costs of additional borrowing for the conversion/enabling works, then it will happen. The Treasury would do the sums and find out that it's simply a better idea to spend more money now than it would be to spend money every year indefinitely. For as long as LR provides good enough savings and efficiencies, that will be the case.

I really don't think the 'shiny new things' approach, as employed typically under New Labour, really helps your case. It has given us schools which fall apart and hospitals which are too small. Not attributes I think you want associated with the Wonderful World Of Light Rail

 

[B&I]

Am I talking about 'ripping the lines up'? No. I'm talking about platform extensions and a new set of points. When extra capacity is needed, you build a new underground line between Queens Road and Trafford depots. None of the original conversion works are wasted. The street running section in the city centre stays and becomes dedicated to the lines which require street running - Trafford, Eccles, Airport etc. Another clear example of straw-manning

Ah, forgive my confusion. You were talking about having to upgrade Metrolink to because of its woeful inability to handle passenger numbers which would be expected in any populous European city. What you are actually talking about doing is retaining the present low-capacity system, but spending billions on a cross-city tunnel, which, had it been built in the 70s to connect existing electrified HR lines, would have led to Manchester having much better public transport than it currently does. Do you spend a lot of time thinking these ideas through?

 

[Chester1]

Ah, forgive my confusion. You were talking about having to upgrade Metrolink to because of its woeful inability to handle passenger numbers which would be expected in any populous European city. What you are actually talking about doing is retaining the present low-capacity system, but spending billions on a cross-city tunnel, which, had it been built in the 7ps to connect existing electrified HR lines, would have led to Manchester having much better public transport than it currently does. Do you spend a lot of time thinking these ideas through?

Metrolink is not a low capacity system. 45tph with 40-80 seats each through Cornbrook could match all but the biggest heavy rail schemes. Most dislike of Metrolink on this forum is a desire to return things to how they where in X year not meet current demand. There are numerous heavy rail pathing conflicts as things are and they would be worse or impossible to manage if Altrincham and Bury had heavy rail services on their old routes. Altrincham has an existing heavy rail service with huge potential for improvement and upgrading the whole ELR to NR standards and reinstating the south ELR junction was costed at £25m about 4 or 5 years ago but had a poor business case. As things stand the Bury line has 5tph of double units and 5tph of single units with the Trafford Park service from 2020 being single units and turning back at Crumpsall. The Bury line capacity could be doubled to 15tph of double units for the whole line for cost of buying extra trams. Metrolink and South Wales are not comparable systems anyway.

I was impressed by the ride quality of Edinburgh's trams. The seats where more comfortable than those on many trains but too narrow because of the need to have standing space. If a 60-75mph 50m long light rail model can be built at an affordable cost then light rail for South Wales could work. However, I am not convinced that this would be cheaper than full or partial heavy rail electrification. If (and it is a big if) a South Wales light rail system is a success it would likely be copied. It resembles TfGMs third city crossing 2040 proposal for tram trains running Glossop/Marple then underneath the city between Piccadilly and Salford Crescent (not Piccadilly to Victoria) to Wigan.

 

[B&I]

Metrolink is not a low capacity system. 45tph with 40-80 seats each through Cornbrook could match all but the biggest heavy rail schemes. Most dislike of Metrolink on this forum is a desire to return things to how they where in X year not meet current demand. There are numerous heavy rail pathing conflicts as things are and they would be worse or impossible to manage if Altrincham and Bury had heavy rail services on their old routes. Altrincham has an existing heavy rail service with huge potential for improvement and upgrading the whole ELR to NR standards and reinstating the south ELR junction was costed at £25m about 4 or 5 years ago but had a poor business case. As things stand the Bury line has 5tph of double units and 5tph of single units with the Trafford Park service from 2020 being single units and turning back at Crumpsall. The Bury line capacity could be doubled to 15tph of double units for the whole line for cost of buying extra trams. Metrolink and South Wales are not comparable systems anyway.

I was impressed by the ride quality of Edinburgh's trams. The seats where more comfortable than those on many trains but too narrow because of the need to have standing space. If a 60-75mph 50m long light rail model can be built at an affordable cost then light rail for South Wales could work. However, I am not convinced that this would be cheaper than full or partial heavy rail electrification. If (and it is a big if) a South Wales light rail system is a success it would likely be copied. It resembles TfGMs third city crossing 2040 proposal for tram trains running Glossop/Marple then underneath the city between Piccadilly and Salford Crescent (not Piccadilly to Victoria) to Wigan.

I don't think South Wales is comparable to Manchester, except perhaps as warning of what happens when you fiddle with railway systems for reasons other than trying to secure the best possible service. However, some on here seem to think that Metrolink is a stunning success which should be replicated everywhere.

My problem with Metrolink is not nostalgia for old railway lines which closed in my boyhood, when I wasn't even living on this island. It is based on the system plainly not being capable of shifting the number of people Manchester needs shifted, as shown by the packed trams every time I have attempted to use it during rush hour, and by the momentum apparently gathering to build tunnels under central Manchester as should have happened 40 years ago. Albeit, still using low-capacity trams because TfGM can't admit that replacing Metrolink with heavy rail was a sexond-rate solution, unworthy of a city of Manchester's size, forced on it by the ages-old British reluctance to invest properly in anything.

 

[Chester1]

I don't think South Wales is comparable to Manchester, except perhaps as warning of what happens when you fiddle with railway systems for reasons other than trying to secure the best possible service. However, some on here seem to think that Metrolink is a stunning success which should be replicated everywhere.

My problem with Metrolink is not nostalgia for old railway lines which closed in my boyhood, when I wasn't even living on this island. It is based on the system plainly not being capable of shifting the number of people Manchester needs shifted, as shown by the packed trams every time I have attempted to use it during rush hour, and by the momentum apparently gathering to build tunnels under central Manchester as should have happened 40 years ago. Albeit, still using low-capacity trams because TfGM can't admit that replacing Metrolink with heavy rail was a sexond-rate solution, unworthy of a city of Manchester's size, forced on it by the ages-old British reluctance to invest properly in anything.

With most people it is nostalgia, especially when people combine converting lines back to heavy rail with reopening Manchester Central! The trains into Manchester are standing room only in the peaks too and Metrolink standing could be significantly reduced by more double trams, currently very few are doubles. The removal of trains from Altrincham has freed up capacity for other services. A tunnel has support as a long term option but it is at least 20 years away and it would be on a very different route to what was planned 40 years ago. Metrolink was the best solution because it has become a network covering large areas at a cost similiar too a limited amount of tunnelling and a couple of underground stations.

I don't see what the benefits of light rail conversion are for the heavy rail network in Cardiff, CASR has resolved the infrastructure part of the capacity issues. A South Wales light rail system might work but it is a project that doesn't solve any major problems.

 

[gareth950]

I don't see what the benefits of light rail conversion are for the heavy rail network in Cardiff, CASR has resolved the infrastructure part of the capacity issues. A South Wales light rail system might work but it is a project that doesn't solve any major problems.

I don't think South Wales is comparable to Manchester, except perhaps as warning of what happens when you fiddle with railway systems for reasons other than trying to secure the best possible service. However, some on here seem to think that Metrolink is a stunning success which should be replicated everywhere.

..............forced on it by the ages-old British reluctance to invest properly in anything.

Which is exactly what were seeing with the 'Core Valley lines' nonsense. A network upgrade done on the cheap because a proper HR electrification upgrade is seen as too difficult and too expensive.
In 2012 a full HR electrification of the entire current network was agreed - so the 'Core VL' plus Ebbw Vale, Maesteg, the City line, Penarth, Barry, the Vale and Cardiff Bay, and CASR was implemented to get ready for that. I'm not saying all that would still be going ahead in it's entirety now, but even partial HR electrification of the current network, using bi-modes, would at least keep the network together and allow HR electrification of the rest in future.

What should be going ahead now is the 2012 HR electrification plan, with a separate light rail network for Cardiff and the suburbs not served by the HR network built around it. So out to St Mellons in the east, serving the new housing development in the north west etc. If that means taking over roads for trams in peak periods so be it. That's the point.

But that's not happening because apparently there's no money for it. Yet WG have billion pound cheques waiting to be signed for industrial sized mega road schemes. It's hypocrisy of the highest order. WG talk about sustainability, they passed the future generations act etc, but their actions do the opposite.

 

[HowardGWR]

A while back I asked this question. Could one of you experts please answer it? I'd be very grateful, thanks.

Tell me, is there not room for at least one extra (HR) station between Llandaf and Cathays (say at Western Avenue) and between Heath and Queen St (say at Wedal Rd)? Both are long stretches through highly built up areas.

 

[Gareth Marston]

What are the actual improvements that passengers will see if HR is converted to LR in South Wales? Your key argument seems to be that it is necessary / desirable because of cost savings, rather than because of any better quality service which will come about.[/QUOTE]
We don't see any hard figures or fact from him just conjecture. If he could point to a medium sized European city that did it and the cost savings achieved?

There's precious little apart from "its ok to sack lots of existing traincrew" from him on the cost front.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I don't see what the benefits of light rail conversion are for the heavy rail network in Cardiff, CASR has resolved the infrastructure part of the capacity issues. A South Wales light rail system might work but it is a project that doesn't solve any major problems.

As I've said before it does tick two big political objectives for Welsh Laboour firstly of taking control of something from Westminster and secondly presenting something shiny and new for the Valleys.

 

[PHILIPE]

As I've said before it does tick two big political objectives for Welsh Laboour firstly of taking control of something from Westminster and secondly presenting something shiny and new for the Valleys.

Vanity project ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry, but neither of those areas are comparable with the geographic, social or economic area that is Cardiff.

Why is that?

 

[Llanigraham]

Why is that?

Because geographically it is totally different. Try looking at a map.
Because Manchester is far bigger, as has been stated already.
All of which have been stated by several of us here several times.

 

[Dai Corner]

But that's not happening because apparently there's no money for it. Yet WG have billion pound cheques waiting to be signed for industrial sized mega road schemes. It's hypocrisy of the highest order. WG talk about sustainability, they passed the future generations act etc, but their actions do the opposite.

I'm probably not up to speed on the financial side of WG transport projects.

Do we know for sure whether the £325m referred to in the City Deal I quoted above is still on the table and if so whether it will be enough to electrify the Valley Lines (no 'core') ? What about the £400m for the 'wider metro area'?

Have the completion of the A465 improvements and the building of the M4 Relief Road been funded or are they still just proposals? I presume the latter as widely differing figures have been given.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'm probably not up to speed on the financial side of WG transport projects.

Do we know for sure whether the £325m referred to in the City Deal I quoted above is still on the table and if so whether it will be enough to electrify the Valley Lines (no 'core') ? What about the £400m for the 'wider metro area'?

Have the completion of the A465 improvements and the building of the M4 Relief Road been funded or are they still just proposals? I presume the latter as widely differing figures have been given.

The current section of the A465 project 6 miles or so from Brynmawr to Gilwern had an authorised price tag of £800 million, it's known to be seriously over budget.once that's finished they still have another section they will want to chuck money at. The current M4 price tag is £1500 million. So Welsh Government are or are planning to sink £3 Billion in to big road projects.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Vanity project ?

A combination of things I think. A chance to actually gain control over something having banged on about needing more powers for years, the need to show that Labour "cares for the Valleys" and the desire that it's shiny and new.also the South Wales Metro proposals from Prof Berry has put them on the spot they feel they have to react to it and be seen to be implementing it, however there's too many goodies in the shop and more than they have pocket money for.