Metro, subsidies & Cardiff… Some tough choices and compromises?

Despite the naysaying and the covid induced delays, the Core Valley Lines (CVL) transformation part of The South Wales Metro is progressing at pace and by the end of 2025, will deliver a radical uplift in public transport services and capacity to the core valleys north of Cardiff[i]. This is a great start, but we have so much more to do.   Net Zero Wales (NZW) [ii] sets out stretching mode shift target which suggests to me, that the increased capacity being delivered on the CVL will need to double again.  

Figure 1 Metro Depot at Taffs Well

As a comparator, the Tyne and Wear Metro, which has a similar catchment population to the CVL, is now back at 30M passengers (PAX) a year[iii]. In contrast, the CVL is at about 10M and current thinking and modelling is I suspect, anticipating maybe 12-15M PAX post CVL transformation.  This for me is a woefully undercooked estimate.   If we can fix a few things (especially the omissions in Cardiff) and adopt a more “retail like” approach, then there’s no reason why the CVL cannot be handling well over 20M PAX within a few years of full operation.  Aside from major decarbonisation benefits, reduced car dependency will lead to fewer Road Traffic Accidents (RTA) and so lower costs to health services; that uplift will also help enable regeneration/Transit Oriented Development (TOD) across the entire network.

Whilst the teams have to focus on completing the current job, we also need to be considering the network and services enhancements needed to affordably attract and reliably accommodate that additional demand. We need go a little beyond what has been committed – with an eye on scope, capital cost, operating cost and demand/farebox.

In so doing I can see there are tough choices and compromises required, affecting all the key partners involved; so Welsh Government (WG), Transport for Wales (TfW), Network Rail (NR), Department for Transport (DfT), UK Government, Cardiff Council (CC), Cardiff Capital Region (CCR), Rail Unions and property developers.

To help, and to mark my stepping away from my temporary role as part time advisor to Transport for Wales, I have summarised a range of pragmatic interventions that, for a relatively modest further capital investment and with no/limited additional operating cost (opex), would

• Provide more network capacity, especially in Cardiff, able to reliably support 25-30M PAX
• Provide more network resilience and redundancy
• Reduce the overall subsidy and subsidy per passenger
• Enable much more effective bus/rail integration in Cardiff
• Enable more platform capacity for South Wales Mainline (SWML) services at Cardiff Central
• Support and enhance development and regeneration at key locations around the network in Cardiff and across the valleys– especially Cardiff Central and the Bay. I think we need a “Metro Development Corporation“.

But there are some serious challenges and obstacles. So, to deliver these benefits, we have to be honest about those challenges and acknowledge them before we can collectively address them. No pulling punches.   Something for Wales’s new First Minister Vaughan Gething and Transport Minister Ken Skates (welcome back!) to consider as well.

So here are the issues…..and opportunities.

I have no doubt these proposals will ruffle a few feathers in several organisations, but I think we need to if we are to maximise the benefits of the current metro programme.

Providing capacity where the demand is greatest–especially in Cardiff!

As I have written before, Cardiff gets a raw deal given Metro services at over half of the city’s station will still be stuck at 2 trains per hour(tph), which is a woeful under provision in places where “no one waits 30 mins for a 15-minute trip”. Cardiff is not really getting a metro.

In fact, only three non-city centre stations get any material change in services – Radyr, Llandaf and Cathays!  This is a serious failing given the large latent demand for higher quality and frequent public transport in Cardiff and where the potential demand is higher than many other parts of the network. 

In contrast all the Metro stations in Caerphilly, Merthyr and RCT will be getting a minimum of 4tph everywhere.  This is a missed opportunity, especially in Cardiff, to secure more overall network demand and farebox – for potentially lower operating cost.

The catchment population data further supports the need for this to be addressed. The catchment population around Cardiff’s Coryton and City lines (serving 10 stations)  is greater than the Cynon valley to Aberdare, the Rhymney Line north of Bargoed and the Taff Vale line north of Abercynon to Merthyr – all of which are getting 4tph and require many more Vehicle Km (VKm) and so operating cost, to service that demand.

The current poor patronage on the City and Coryton lines is as a direct result of the poor service frequency. There really is little or no point operating a 2tph rail service in Cardiff if one is serious about mode shift and operational/financial efficiency.

So we ought to be focussing the capacity where the demand is.  For me it is commercially and financially naïve to be operating 4tph all the way from Bargoed to Rhymney whilst only operating 2tph on the City and Coryton Lines in Cardiff.  I’d like to retain 4tph to Rhymney but not if we can’t do so on the City and Coryton Lines.  These poorly served lines in Cardiff, in addition to their larger catchment populations, are also much shorter than those northern CVL sections and so require less OPEX and VKm to serve. 

Together the City and Coryton Lines have the potential (if we use broadly the same trip rates as other Metro system like Newcastle) to be carrying 2-3M PAX per year – which is materially more than current modelling anticipates. I suspect some officials are failing to see that current modelling elasticities applied are inappropriate for interventions that would address the service frequency omissions in Cardiff.

We cannot claim to be serious about financial efficiency if we don’t address this issue; Welsh Government also set out their initial desire for a minimum 4tph for all CVL services in 2017, in their policy priorities and requirements for bidders.

Yes, we have the welcome commitment to Cardiff Crossrail Phase 1, which will connect Cardiff Central to Cardiff Bay, but that does not address the broader issues for Cardiff and is really only an enabler of a larger scheme and the promise of significantly more benefits.

Reducing operating costs per vehicle Km (VKm)

We also have challenges with regard to the costs of rail operations – often dragged into an unhelpful and generally misinformed rail v bus debate.  Rail and bus do different things and have very different outputs. In populated areas it is always easier and financially more efficient to move a large number of people on fewer bigger trains/Light Rail Vehicles than on many more lower capacity buses (which are often made less attractive because of lack of bus priority, congestion, etc). Eg do we want to move 1000 people an hour on 4 tram-trains or 15 buses[iv]! 

In areas of lower population and/or low demand corridors it is more efficient to operate buses, in densely populated areas then segregated rail is more efficient. If we maximise the opportunity to deliver better rail services on our current core urban network, we can allocate bus capacity to serve places where rail can’t go or provide a feeder function, instead of (as is the case today) places where suboptimal bus services compete with suboptimal rail services. I covered the opportunity of more formal bus/rail integration in a blog earlier this year.

We need a much more granular analysis of mode costs, by route and without such analysis being infected by clumsy apportionment of network overheads and transfer pricing and/or costing. A good management accountant will appreciate this. Using all Wales averages for mode does not really help.

I am also frustrated, especially given stated concerns some have re: the operational costs of Metro, that (as I first set out in my evidence to the Senedd Climate Change Committee in 2022) WG have made decisions that have added to the capital costs and certainly the OPEX of the current system.  Some of those earlier, procurement-based decisions, we can and ought to revisit.  For example, whatever deal was done with the rail unions we will have the only Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) in the UK operating without pure Drive Only Operation (DOO); we will have guards on every tram-train LRV involved in “train” despatch operations.  We don’t need to do this everywhere at all times; it adds to unit costs and impacts performance.

This was inevitable given the choice (wrong in my view) not to go for a fully de-designated  non-mainline status for the CVL (so like Manchester, Newcastle, etc).  The CVL should and could be the most efficient “rail operation” in Wales.  As a comparator the very different Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) and operational/staffing protocols of Manchester’s Metrolink means it runs without an operational subsidy. However, we are where we are, and I don’t wish to compromise T&Cs; however, I will challenge the working practices which we can change to improve reliability and reduce operational costs.  

Enabling commercial development whilst not compromising Metro

Another challenge is commercial, as I set out below, Crossrail Phase 2 (including the vital connection from the new Crossrail platforms at Central to the west) is essential for future network flexibility, capacity, reliability and redundancy. However, this comes up against NR’s commercial teams desire to extract maximum value from their land at Cardiff Central – and a preference from some perhaps, for there to be no Crossrail at all.  I get the commercial focus – but that tail cannot wag the dog that is the wider need for Cardiff and the region to have a higher capacity and resilient Metro network.  There is a similar pressure facing the extension from Cardiff Bay to Pierhead St and the proposed new station/interchange.  I suspect that the current Crossrail Phase 1 plans may not have sufficient funds to get to Pierhead St in the current programme.  This will potentially impact the opportunity to safeguard the land for the station at that location, which is vital to the longer-term expansion of Crossrail to the East; I think it also vital to support commercial development in that part of the bay (and later further east at Roath Dock). 

Some accommodations and compromises have to be found  between the commercial pressure and the need to safeguard the corridor for Crossrail – at Cardiff Central and in the bay. 

To help, I think all parties need to be aware of a key fact that is probably being overlooked. The larger Crossrail network (even without the full expansion east to Newport Rd and to the North West corridor into RCT), service optimisation and additional stations set out below will certainly result in greater footfall at both Central (esp. around the new Crossrail platforms) and at Pierhead St- expanding the commercial opportunities at both locations. An opportunity for the total value of benefits to be greater than the sum of the parts.  I suspect the current modelling of demand is still “predict and provide” based on limited elasticities, and so for me completely inappropriate for the vision we are developing for Metro Central and Crossrail Phase 2 in Cardiff.

More strategically, as I set out here, perhaps the Cardiff Capital Region needs a “Metro Development Corporation“.

Improving reliability and capacity of Metro

One aspect of TfW’s new responsibility, is reliability and resilience of CVL services.  Probably unknown to most people,  the CVL  network is exposed to risks associated with the condition of “Intersection Bridge” (this is the bridge which carries the CVL south of Queen Street over the SWML to the bay and Cardiff Central – those with an interest will recall the innovation required to actually electrify the SWML under it).   If this bridge has to be repaired, maintained or even replaced (as is likely in the medium/longer term) it will have to be taken out of service for a period (days, weeks or even longer).  This will severely restrict  CVL operations.  In my view the CVL network desperately needs more resilience and redundancy at its core….as well as more capacity.  There is a means of achieving this and providing additional network benefits at the same time. A little like the “2^nd City Crossing” in Manchester.

There are also likely interventions that were “value engineered ”out of scope of the current works whose re-introduction will also improve overall reliability (so more double tracking for example).

Another little-known issue facing TfW, NR and rail operators of services on the SWML is the finite availability of platform space at Cardiff Central.  The stark fact is that there is no easy way of adding any new heavy rail (HR) platform capacity at Cardiff Central – there just is no room.  The only way to find more capacity for new SWML services (eg like new the Bristol Services desired) is to divert more of the CVL services away from the main platforms. The use of tram-trains presents an opportunity to allocate platform 6 for SWML (subject to more track/signalling work) instead of CVL (as is the case currently), by routing more CVL services via the proposed station link/ramp to the new Crossrail platforms.

Metro CVL service legibility and simplicity

One of the legacies of the Metro procurement is the over complicated Train Service Requirement (TSR) that has resulted in services planned from Merthyr, Treherbert and Aberdare to both  Cardiff Bay and Central (although not Rhymey as was originally set out).  This is an unfortunate legacy of my work in WG in 2015 on the original draft TSR….which has been manipulated over time and is now a millstone getting in the way of a more efficient and legible network (You’ll need to read my book for a fuller explanation)

The best Metro networks offer clear legible, high frequency services with good interchange at multiple stations.  No-one using London Underground, Manchester Metrolink Figure 2 , Newcastle Metro Figure 3, etc  expects to be able to get direct services to everywhere from every station.  That is just operationally too complex and costly and would increase risk to service reliability. A confusing network actually suppresses demand as passengers cannot easily see how the network functions.  We need to make some tough decisions to simplify  our planned CVL network with fewer higher frequency service groups that interchange at multiple locations. This will result in an easier to understand, lower cost and more reliable network (See HiTrans[v] for the theory)

Figure 2 Current Manchester Metrolink network

Figure 3 Newcastle Metro

Cardiff Parkway

This should have happened years ago…I’ll say no more!

So, what do we do….

I am concerned that politicians maybe running a little scared of rail, advised by sometimes misinformed officials, and so risk leaving the CVL Metro, “a little underdone” and miss opportunities to drive up patronage, reduce subsidy an improve reliability.   I won’t take seriously concerns over the costs of CVL until the proposals below are progressed.  All the parties need to vent and properly expose their “red lines”; the best outcomes and deals only happen when everyone has properly expressed their view, vociferously and robustly if need be. (Something in my experience you can’t do in an on-line Teams or Zoom meeting!)  So, no more pulled punches.

These proposals below seek to maximise benefits for minimal capex and least OPEX, as well as enabling wider benefits. Collectively, they will also  reduce the overall subsidy and subsidy per passenger through an increase farebox.

Must haves…(and this is my Crossrail Phase 2 plus some extra bits!)

If the tough decisions are made, the items below, have a manageable capital requirement, and can be delivered with little or no additional OPEX:

• Cardiff West tactical enhancement to enable 4tph on City line (by dropping Llandaf branch from 10tph to 8tph)   AND a short loop on Coryton line to enable the reallocation of Trimode stock (from Rhymney) to deliver 4tph on that line – these need to happen asap, there is “no metro” in Cardiff without them

• The Ramp/Station link to connect Cardiff Crossrail Phase 1a to the throat (Barry up/down lines) at the western end of Platform 8. This will provide more overall network capacity, reliability and redundancy and will enable tram-trains from the valleys to operate via the City Line direct  to the  bay without having to route via Queen St and over intersection Bridge

• The station link/ramp and Cardiff West measures have to be integrated into the  current Metro Central programme. To not be considering  interventions that will have a material impact on PAX and pedestrian flows at Central (and so the commercial potential) is a failing in my view. On the latter I think our modelling re: CVL passenger numbers is out of kilter with the numbers that system benchmarking suggests is possible

• As I stated way back in 2011[vi] and in the 2013 Metro Impact Study[vii], we need a comprehensive regeneration/landscaping project along Bute St/Lloyd George Avenue. This ought to include the closure of the western carriage and conversion to green space/public realm[viii].

• Three more stations in Cardiff in addition to those planned at Butetown and Crwys Rd. Collectively this adds more to the CVL catchment than  some other line sections in their entirety.  These are Roath Park, Gabalfa, Ely Mill; then add an additional platform at Cogan on the Penarth branch. We also need Cardiff Parkway and Cardiff East on the SWML![ix]

• All these measures require the complete redesign and simplification of the CVL timetable and services into simpler more legible 4tph service groups with good interchange Figure 4 . So, perhaps 4tph from Rhondda to the Bay via Queen St, 4tph Merthyr to Central via Queen St, 4tph Aberdare to the Bay via City Line/Central/Ramp/Crossrail,  4tph  Coryton-Penarth. Retain 5/6 tph Barry/VoG to Caerphilly and the Rhymney Line. Routing some tram-trains from the valleys via Crossrail will free up platform space at Cardiff Central

• Reduce services north of Bargoed to 2tph and reallocate rolling stock to securing 4tph on the Coryton line (in advance of operating tram-trains on this service). It is financially inefficient to be operating that frequency and capacity on 10km of line with relatively low catchment Vs say the Coryton line which is just 4 Km with over 4 times the catchment population and yet planned to be 2tph.  This is a collective institutional failing.

• Removing the planning obstacles for Cardiff Parkway – getting moving on even just a two-platform relief line station asap is vital in my view. This will provide an out-of-town development location connected to the Metro and SWML network.  This location is far more sustainable than the current plethora of car based out of town developments like Cardiff Gate, Celtic Springs, Imperial Park, etc

Figure 4 This is how a simplified CVL Metro could (and should) look by 2029/30…ps one could tweak the above with 2mvs from Caerphilly to the bay. Once Penarth has OLE/trams trains then Coryton Penarth operate via bay/Crossrail. Alternatively, one could also link Merthyr to Penarth, Aberdare to the bay via Crossrail and Coryton to bay…there are plenty of variants once we have the infrastructure in place!

Nice to haves:

Once we get the basics above sorted out, we need some further capital and potentially more operating costs and rolling stock to cover:

• OLE/traction power sufficient to allow tram-trains to operate to Penarth; this will allow the 4tph Coryton-Penarth to operate via the Bay and the new Crossrail platforms freeing  up even more platform capacity at Central. This will likely  need further tram-trains, so an early order is needed

• Crossrail Phase 1b from Cardiff Bay to Pierhead St; I think this is really important from a commercial and development perspective, but is not as important as the Station link to the west above.

• Aberdare – Hirwaun

• Introduction of Driver Only Operation (DOO) with no guards on some CVL services to reduce operating costs eg Coryton – Penarth. Yes a potentially challenging proposal; but we have to engage this question at some point

• Elsewhere DOO but with roving customer service/station staff not involved in door operations

• More rolling stock to take advantage of the additional network capacity

• Regardless of operating protocols, I would also pursue a full CVL network de-designation to “non-mainline status” (so more than just the bay line and Crossrail Phase 1!)  to reduce the bureaucracy of dealing with National Rail standards and the associated ORR process. This will also help engender a different and less “heavy rail constrained ” corporate culture at TfW and one which it needs in a post bus reform transport integration world.

Longer Term

The above focus reflects the likely limits on capital funding, as a consequence there are a number of further metro expansion intervention that because each will likely cost £M000s means they probably will only be explored well into the 2030s. These include: Cardiff Crossrail east to Newport Rd, Cardiff Crossrail west to NW Corridor and RCT, Radyr/Coryton link, Caerphilly-Newport and Quakers Yard to Nelson/Ystrad Mynach.

Metro Outside the CVL

For balance I think we also need to

• Secure UK Government funding for a major SWML enhancement re: new services and stations (ref Burns proposals and Western Gateway 2050 Rail Vision[x]).

• Fix Maesteg  for 2tph

• Focus resources on getting 4tph on the Ebbw Valley as far as Llanilleth with some services routing via Newport to Abergavenny and a new station at Caerleon; probably better value than extending the line to Abertillery (sorry Abertillery)!

Overall Benefits

The key benefits of what I estimate for the “must haves” is a £100~150M capital programme are:

• A more legible and easy to understand metro network…and in Cardiff a service offer that can actually be called a metro (unlike current plans) capable of securing much higher passenger demand. I don’t think one can seriously consider “turning on” a Road User Charge in Cardiff until this done

• A CVL network that can attract more people (est 25M+ PAX per year), operate more reliably and with no need for additional OPEX. The reallocation of planned stock/services will result in a reduction in the subsidy required to operate CVL services – with room for more if we make tougher decision re staffing protocols

• A network with more capacity and resilience (especially given alternative routing to the bay from the valleys )

• Much better utilisation of rail infrastructure in Cardiff (Something required by the Wales Transport Strategy[xi])

• The must haves can be done with the existing planned fleet of tram-trains and Trimodes (so no new vehicles required – yet)

• More rail/bus integration opportunities (See my blog earlier this year: Cardiff bus station, bus networks and integration… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

• Overall, more fare revenue (and lower subsidy) per passenger Km

• Getting more CVL services onto the new Crossrail platforms will free up space for additional SWML services (subject to further track/signalling work at Central).  There really is no other way to enhance the platform capacity at Central given the space constraints.

• With higher numbers of passengers there is greater commercial/development potential at Pierhead St and Cardiff Central  – as well as at stations like Gabalfa, Ely Mill, Roath Park (and Cardiff East & Parkway on the SWML).  With the longer-term full Crossrail to the east via Roath Dock and Splott then major development opportunities will present themselves to ABP re: their land at Roath Dock.

Tough Choices

I can see some of this is not easy and may mean rowing back on earlier commitments/ agreements.  However, if we are serious about mode shift, operational and financial efficiency and enabling wider benefits, we need those tough conversations.  The main ones for me, which will need “a chat”, include:

• NR, DfT, WG, TfW, CC and CCR actively working together to support the Crossrail line and station link to the west; and CCC/WG working with developers in Cardiff Bay to develop Pierhead St station. As I said, the additional PAX generated from these proposals will provide more commercial headroom than that currently anticipated. The Metro Central programme has to include the Station link and Cardiff West

• WG and TfW to address the need for Guards be on every CVL vehicle Vs roving customer service staff! (Cf other metros).  WG, TfW and the Rail Unions need to revisit this. I would also remove costly and restrictive gate lines and re-allocate some guards to more station-based activities and introduce much high penalties for fare evasion

• We need to set out the need and value of a simpler more legible network, that enables easy interchange for some trips.  For example, if as we should, run all the 4tph Treherbert tram-trains to the Bay via Queen St,  it means getting to Central  from say Porth will need a change at Pontypridd, Radyr or Queen St.  With much higher service frequency (like on London underground) this is really not an issue.

• We should reflect that even with current plans (eg 2tph to the bay and 2tph to Central from Treherbert) if someone waiting at Porth for a bay service sees a tram-train for central turn up, they will still get on and change later.  Overall, there will be no change in the amount of interchange required – but we will have a simpler more legible network as a result.

To conclude I’ll end with a perhaps the much bigger challenge related to Welsh Government’s  NZW mode shift commitments.  Given the scale of change required, we need  honesty, and a recognition from politicians  that the scale of funding currently available to transport (capex and OPEX) needs a major uplift.  For example, an additional £200M pa in revenue would have an enormous impact on what and where bus and rail services we can run in a post reform bus world.   This kind of number pales into insignificance when compared to WG’s £10Bn plus Health Budget[xii]; with Local Health boards regularly overrunning by £000Ms[xiii]. It is also pales into insignificance Vs the external costs of car use which can be counted in £Bns!

I get the pressure, but there needs to be a greater effort to reform current Health Service process and organisation. These are public bodies who regularly add to the transport problem by building major health facilities in places with little or no public transport (eg Llanfrechfa Grange). In so doing, dumping a problem and cost onto the transport department, who with the 20pmph measures will reduce financial pressures on health boards through reduced number of RTAs!.    So, the relative sizes of departmental budgets need to be rebalanced.

Finally and perhaps most important, to help address the capital funding challenge, I think its untenable[xiv] for an incoming Labour Government at Westminster  not to address the need to fully devolve rail powers to WG and fully Barnettise all English rail spend (HS2, NPR, NR, etc).  Closer to home politicians have to get their heads around reducing the road use discount[xv]!!  

I’ll get my coat!

Some further background to help with context:

Wales, Metro, TOD & Devolution… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

Cardiff bus station, bus networks and integration… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

Metro Hopes for 2023… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

Metro Moans for 2023… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

Mark Barry, May 2022: Submission to Senedd Climate Change Committee

Wales, Transport Planning & Choices… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

A Public Transport Grid for the M4 Corridor… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

A Cardiff Crossrail… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

South Wales Metro & Lloyd George Avenue – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

The UK rail industry, Wales & HS2 – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

Welsh Government, 2017, Policy priorities for bidders

References…

---

[i]          M Barry, 2024, Wales, Metro, TOD & Devolution… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

[ii]         Welsh Government, 2021, Net Zero Wales | GOV.WALES

[iii]         UK Gov, 2023, Light rail and tram statistics, England: year ending March 2023 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[iv]         M Barry, 2022, Wales, Transport Planning & Choices… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

[v]          John D. Nelson (University of Newcastle) Corinne Mulley (University of Newcastle) Göran Tegnér (Transek AB) Gunnar Lind (Stratega AB) Truls Lange (Civitas Consultants) Civitas 2005, HiTrans Best Practice – Network Planning  Guidance

[vi]         M Barry, Cardiff Business Partnership/Institute of Welsh Affairs, 2011, iwa-metroreport.pdf

[vii]        M Barry/Metro Consortium, for Welsh Government, 2013, A South Wales Metro: impact study | GOV.WALES

[viii]        M Barry, 2018, South Wales Metro & Lloyd George Avenue – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)
M Barry, 2023, Greenways for Cardiff? – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

[ix]         M Barry, 2023, Metro Hopes for 2023… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)
M Barry, 2023 Metro Moans for 2023… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

[x]          Western Gateway 2050 Rail vision, 2022, Western Gateway Rail Viision

[xi]         Welsh Gov, 2021 Llwybr Newydd: the Wales transport strategy 2021 | (page 18)

[xii]        Welsh Government 2024, Wales Budget 2023–2024 (gov.wales)

[xiii]        BBC News 2023, NHS Wales: Health board deficits could hit £800m – BBC News

[xiv]        M Barry, 2024, Wales, Metro, TOD & Devolution… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

[xv]        M Barry, 2023, Cars, Congestion, Health and Road Pricing… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)