Like Anthony, I believe that railway stations can and should play an important role in urban planning and development. His article demonstrates that exciting things can happen on and around the railway network, and within it Mark Rose and Malcolm Holmes set out the aspirations their authorities have for their stations.
While I am a fan of devolution, I have to admit to some hesitation. More of my concerns later, but first let’s state the case for devolved control of stations. I would point to five key potential drivers of additional value from devolution:
- Local insight - has to be better than remote and number-driven approaches, which will always struggle to understand and respond to the human impact of stations.
- Local accountability - will provide for greater and more transparent accountability of decision-makers to their local communities.
- Integrated solutions - there should be the potential to develop, deliver and maintain more integrated solutions - particularly (but not limited to) urban mobility. Using station assets for other community uses (for example, post office, gym, health, education, worship) can support increased access to those services, offer a lower carbon cost and increase rail travellers.
- Local participation - the success of Community Rail Partnerships demonstrates the value of local participation. New businesses, improved stations, more rail travellers and greater community value from station assets have been generated through talented, dedicated and local participants.
- Long-term interest – something a franchisee with a fixed-term contract is hard placed to offer, and where Network Rail’s interests (at the franchised stations) are more about station asset management than the consequence or value of those assets. Local Government has a vested and long-term interest in the contribution of the stations to its broader policy agenda. Failing stations lead to consequences that they will otherwise have to deal with.
I will be very interested to see how the plans for stations in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands develop, and the case is made for local control. The starting point from which to build is the model of London Overground’s railway stations. Dramatic improvement in station environments and increased staff presence comes at a cost, but no one doubts that the London Overground stations (and the network itself) offer an established and successful part of TfL’s transport network. It is perhaps telling that the metro services offered by the national franchisees don’t have the same resonance of identity or clarity as part of an urban transport network.
So why my lingering sense of hesitation about station devolution? The concern relates to the potential consequences of a more fragmented approach to railway stations in what is an already complex and fragmented industry. I pose these personal hesitations as questions since they are risks that may or may not emerge, and their impact when they do is also uncertain and may be overwhelmed by other benefits gained.
With each local controller of stations seeking to stamp their mark on the station estate, will we see a myriad of branding, wayfinding approaches and ticket retailing and revenue protection strategies? Will the national network’s coherence diminish and damage passenger familiarity and confidence to travel?
At a local level devolution may provide clarity over responsibilities, but it is likely to add an additional participant to the contractual matrix. The devolved model will be yet another variant of station leasing if the five or six variants we have now are not enough.
Central Government has been keen to push greater powers to a local level, and not just in transport. What it is less keen on is devolving financial resources on a sustained basis for these new responsibilities. Station enhancements and maintenance will have to compete against other local priorities.
Ultimately there will be stronger and weaker participants in a new devolved world. Some authorities/mayors will relish their new authority and create new approaches and sources of funding. However, there will be some who are disinterested, disorganised or just in disarray. We might find a rump of stations (the unloved remainder) that lead to parts of the network becoming less utilised.
Station devolution has the potential to create real and material benefits at a local level. But, all parties should go into the devolution drive with their eyes wide open to both the future possibilities locally and the potential consequences nationally.
