Caerphilly Interchange…

It seems my recent Value for Money (VfM) blog, especially my commentary re:  the new £33M Caerphilly interchange generated quite a bit of comment & debate.  Since then, I have had a few discussions and talked to some of the people closer to the design and development of the project; with further discussions planned (so I may update again!).

As a result, I have to put my hand up. I hadn’t really explored the full details of the scope or context of the project and so was unaware of some of the issues and wider benefits underpinning the project. In fact, there was a public consultation and full details of the scheme are available via the planning application on the Caerphilly Council Website – The scheme’s Design and Access statement is worth a read.  

Figure 1 From Design and Access Statement for Caerphilly Interchange (Credit Grimshaw)

The kind of last-minute commentary I offered last week is the bane of transport and engineering professionals who often work for years on such projects.  Doh!

I really should know better – a good literature review is essential!  My failing here is an oft seen phenomenon esp. on social media of, “a little knowledge is dangerous”.  I opined on this in relation to climate change denial a few years ago.

However, I think it also fair to say the failings here are not all mine. I am not sure the Comms and PR around the project reflect its full picture or scope. This is not just a new station/interchange project. It also includes a new pedestrian/road bridge over the railway integrated with the station. 

I suspect (and I will find out) that much of the £33M is associated with the new bridge vs the enhancements of aesthetics and function of the station/interchange.  What I didn’t appreciate was the poor condition of that road/pedestrian bridge – and the reality it needs a major renewal or replacement irrespective of what one does to the station function itself. 

Given the station is integrated with the road bridge, it becomes difficult, if not impossible to progress them independently.

I have the same critique of the PR/Comms re Cardiff Crossrail Phase 1a – it’s not just a link to the bay; there is a lot of highway engineering and landscaping as well. Strategically and more important perhaps, once we add “Station Link” as part of Crossrail Phase 2 (which Phase 1a enables), we can deliver a major uplift in CVL network capacity, reliability and redundancy aligned with a whole range of new and more legible service patterns.  These latter benefits have and continue to be poorly communicated in my view (hence my blogs re Cardiff Crossrail Phase 2).

I also have to acknowledge that I wanted to create a bit of a splash. I saw an opportunity to shine a light of how we assess VfM for major projects. More strategically I want to ask whether or not our political and regional governance in the CCR is “right” – esp. given Andy Burnham’s devolution agenda in England which will see more empowered mayoral authorities. How does the Cardiff Capital Region compete with those? 

I still think Lyndsay Whittle was right to ask the question…especially how easily we seem to lose the old for the faddish and new (Look at Newport Station – which again would have been better served perhaps by an upgrade to the existing building) Although I note CADW assessed the existing Caerphilly station and reported that the building did not meet the standard necessary for listing.

I also think the VfM challenge, especially the comparison between this project and others that have yet to secure funding, is valid – and still merits reflection. I do want to help ensure we get the right projects, in the right places at the right time and price.

Given this project is cooked in – I also think there is an obligation on the local authority to consider further interventions that maximise the value and impact of the scheme.  I have written extensively about “transit-oriented development” (TOD) in respect of the Metro.  (including in Wales Housing Quarterly recently)

Are we collectively bringing forward enough and more densified developments around our Metro network.  We should be, including at Caerphilly, which will become a major interchange. The LA should be exploring how it can expand, infill and perhaps replace with new development, to densify within a Km of the station, especially new and affordable housing? This is a location that will be closer to the centre of Cardiff in travel time than many parts of Cardiff (and yes, I know it’s not all about access to Cardiff – see my recent point about new stations in Cardiff like Crwys Rd and Roath Park making Caerphilly and the Rhymney Valley easier to access using PT)

So, on reflection I think given the broader context, the new interchange and bridge over the railway does provide an essential piece of regional infrastructure fit for the next 100 years.  I also note that the full and integrated rail/bus interchange design at Caerphilly is something Cardiff Central Station and the Bus Interchange have not achieved to the same degree!

The actual architectural design of the station is what it is…some will like it, some will not.  I don’t have a particular problem with it.  It is well designed and caters for the uses and needs of a modern station as well as providing a distinctive “gateway” to the town.

So, in summary, for me the key lessons and issues are:

• Do a “literature review” before opining – my bad! I blame the heat!
• In presenting the scope, be clear on what the money is actually for. In this case I suspect a lot of the £33M is for a new bridge over the railway which is needed (or significant ongoing maintenance) irrespective of the station
• PR/Comms needs to be better – what are we buying here, vs what people think we are buying?
• Are we doing enough on Transit Oriented Development (TOD) to complement this major investment (See Why we need Transit Oriented Development   and  Metro and Us)
• I’d also like us as a matter of principle to avoid unnecessary demolition where possible (although I can see the challenges in this case)
• Do we have effective regional governance and associated focussed political leadership to help ensure we bring forward the right schemes in the right order – and esp. to enable the wider benefits of investment in transport?  Given what’s happening in England does this bolster the case for a CCR mayoral authority? See this provocation: The Cardiff Capital Region Governance?
• Finally, given the depreciated state of the bridge over the railway, then maybe this again reflects the poverty of the current rail funding eco-system in Wales vs England. WG took on this “asset” with a suboptimal financial arrangement – and one that did not fully reflect the risks and liabilities associated with the CVL rail network and where the interim OMR arrangements WG agreed with UK Gov is woefully inadequate (See  this Senedd letter/paper  and  Hey, Andy, time to devolve rail to Wales! )

Hope that helps – and for the record I have seen nothing yet to change my mind re: the proposed Abertillery extension, Tenby Station pedestrain bidge or the reopening of the Carmarthen-Aberystwyth line!

Stay cool!