|
|
|
A FAIR DEAL FOR THE MOTORIST |
|
A NETWORK THAT IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD? How generous might the
government’s massive
shake up of England’s roads really be? |
||
|
BACKGROUND A previous article
reviewed the Government’s ‘independent’ report of
2011 on investment in major roads in England (‘the Cook report’). The government’s own response
was published in 2012. A follow-up article
reviewed the dangers. In July 2013, the government published its latest plans, Action
for Roads, promising “large scale investment”
in England’s major roads – the Strategic Roads Network (SRN). This command paper promises that a
trebling of funding for motorways and major A-roads by the end of the decade
will lead to the biggest ever upgrade of the existing network. The devil is
in the detail. The DFT PR promises “a guarantee of
a large increase in funding, locked into a long term settlement, backed by
law”, but how guaranteed is this? |
||
|
THINK OF A NUMBER... Talk of “£28 billion of investment”
may sound a lot, but it’s only a percentage of the £50Bn or so taken in
driver taxes each year. Similarly, is spending “between £30 to 50 billion
over a 10-15 year period”. i.e. on average between
£2Bn-£5Bn a year on the SRN that dramatic? Described as “the biggest sustained
commitment to road improvements in decades”, it will “decisively make up for
the underinvestment of the past twenty years. When this is complete, we will
have a network that is the envy of the
world.” The third world perhaps? The DFT
claims that the spending on road enhancements will have tripled from today’s
levels by the end of the decade. Although a commitment to resurface 80% of
the network by 2021 is probably a plus, it might be over-optimistic on
clearing potholes. The £6Bn plus the £3.2Bn previously announced,
will not clear the backlog of potholes. The industry estimate for this was
previously £10Bn, and that figure excludes the costs that will increase
exponentially through letting roads deteriorate. It is ironic that
the DFT notes that “Savings on maintenance work are often a false economy”. The same might be said elsewhere, especially when the
government seems intent to push on with the HS2 white elephant, whose costs
are now reckoned at nearer £50Bn-£80Bn. MANAGED
MOTORWAYS AND EXPRESSWAYS Adding a further 221 miles of extra capacity to our
busiest motorways may sound great before you twig it’s
‘managed motorways’ on the cheap and the hard shoulder being lost. The DFT regards
managed motorways as a great success and its definition of them includes a
state of the art communication system. Has it asked drivers who are
unnecessarily slowed down to 60mph or even 50mph on the excuse of congestion
that isn’t there? This is what happened just after Christmas on a
quarter-full section of the M1. In practice, the Highways Agency (HA) is notorious for out
of date and otherwise inaccurate signage – with the dominant message being to
slow down! Managed
motorway schemes will become standard on some of our busiest national routes,
including a 160 mile corridor along the M1 and M6 from London to the North
West. The DFT plans to treat our most important A roads as
‘expressways’ – with the SRN seeing “high standards of safety and performance
in the way we expect of our motorways”. There should be similar caution over this, as safety
policy has too often been relegated to a fetish for reducing speed. TACKLING CAPACITY The DFT plans to upgrade the
majority of the non-motorway roads on the strategic road network, with a
large proportion improved to dual-carriageway with grade-separated junctions
(where vehicles on the main road are able to drive over or under the
junctions), to ensure freer-flowing traffic nationwide. It will address even well-developed
roads with sections originally built for vehicles driving at a much slower
pace than modern traffic, leaving a bottleneck. A
local pinch-point fund is available until 2015, enabling local improvements
and upgrades at congestion hotspots. This may not be universally good news,
as many schemes are aimed at supporting buses, cycling and walking. AGGRESSIVELY GREEN? There is the predictable mention of
minimising the environmental impact of roads. Whereas there may not be many
objections to making road surfaces quieter or minimising the disturbance of
works to wildlife, the DFT also commits to “an aggressive policy of
decarbonisation”. What exactly this means is not spelt
out. However, on top of the programmed £400 million towards the uptake of low
carbon vehicles, the DFT will spend over £500 million more by the end of the
decade. The DFT moans that the contribution
of road traffic to climate change from carbon dioxide emissions remains a
major challenge, and reminds us that it supports emission reductions, backed
with a series of legally binding carbon budgets. It is ominous that it is discussing
with the European Commission how to best work towards goals for the
environmental performance of transport, although a recent rebellion in the
European Parliament over wider emissions reductions might make EU legislation
more difficult to pass. The DFT faces both ways at once when
it says it wants to bring about the decarbonisation of travel in a way that
is cost-effective, acceptable to users
and makes the most of the economic opportunities for the UK. Consequently It tries to make out
that support for Ultra Low Emission Vehicles in the UK is key
to securing affordable motoring for
the long-term. Don’t tell the Treasury, which has its eyes set on
extorting even more tax out of drivers! |
||
|
LOCALISM The DFT adds that it is
strengthening the role of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to shape
transport policy. LEPs are a scaled down successor to the old English
Regional Development Agencies, and often cover one or two county areas. The
representation is roughly half local councils, half local business, although
representing local feeling is not guaranteed. Some LEPs (e.g. New
Anglia, covering Suffolk and Norfolk) know funds are scarce so have looked
straightaway at approaching the EU for funding (which will in reality is just
recycled taxpayers money, but given or loaned back with an added dependency
to support EU objectives, which may be virulently anti-motorist). It is
ironic that the report hints on removing strings attached to funding. TOLLING BY STEALTH? The DFT vows to
continue with developing route based
strategies (RBS) for the whole network, to build a next generation of
‘improvements and interventions’ for local routes. This will bring together
interested groups – local authorities, LEPs, motorists’
organisations, environmental groups and others – to discuss the future of
a section of SRN. So far the first document towards a
‘RBS’ for the A47 in Norfolk has not mentioned road pricing, but it is early
days. The 2011 ‘Cook report’ pushed
‘consideration’ of tolling, both for new connections and existing major roads
that are currently free. It also suggested ‘developing route-based
strategies’, co-ordinating ‘equivalent plans’ for the SRN and local roads. At a time when many local
authorities are short of cash, there is the danger of creating a local
monopoly or cartel to ensure that free roads do not compete with toll roads.
It is interesting to note that after the Cook report which urges
‘asset-sweating’, the DFT believes that the local highway network is the
country’s most valuable public asset, valued at over £400Bn. It is also interesting to note that
there have since been attempts to move discussion away from tolling just new
roads and onto roads that have been ‘improved’. PLAYING THE NUMBERS GAME The DFT warns that as we return to
economic growth, rising prosperity, substantial
population increases and a fall in the cost of car travel from fuel
efficiency improvements, traffic and congestion
are expected to grow. Even with the worst economic
circumstances and low population growth, traffic levels on strategic roads
are modelled to be 24% higher in 2040 than they are today. It feels a 46%
rise is more likely, and that around 15% of the SRN may experience regular
peak-time congestion and suffer poor conditions at other times of the day.
Major national arteries will start to jam. This is difficult
to prove so far ahead. Quite a few commentators
(such as Christian Wolmar, Professors Nash and Metz) have noted that travel
demand is tailing off. Even DFT admits that since 2007, road traffic in
England has declined by 4%, and since 2010 overall traffic has been largely
static. The DFT’s
predictions have been out in the past, and there is a growing public backlash
over uncontrolled population growth. BRAVE NEW WORLD? The DFT committed
to release a Roads Investment Strategy
(RIS)
by 2015. It would take a view of 20-30 years and reflect a wider, integrated
approach to all modes of transport. It would be strongly influenced by the
local RBS. One potential
benefit will be to drive down costs for the HA, and provide a stable footing
for (e.g.) construction and maintenance companies to invest in skills. This
could provide better value for money for the taxpayer. One
danger is that all RIS initiatives must conform to tight environmental
standards. CfBT anti-car activist and green road pricing advocate Stephen
Joseph has lobbied
the DFT for greater involvement of environmental groups in developing the
RBS. The government intended to publish
and consult on a policy statement for national roads
in 2013. It then intended to introduce legislation in 2014, providing a
stable funding basis for investment and legal powers for a reshaped HA. HA TODAY,
GONE TOMORROW? In the short
term, the HA would become a state-owned
company with greater operational independence. This is said to work round
restrictive civil service rules and offer greater staff incentives. The DFT will
continue to look at further changes - without declaring intentions, the
document compares three possible types of operation such as a trust, a
regulated utility and large scale outsourcing. The DFT holds
that any change needs to be one that motorists
can trust, claiming that experience from other sectors and countries
might benefit road users. It even adds that new models could give motorists more of a say over how roads are run - without
saying how. However, Cook’s original report made
strides towards a hive-off of our roads and most of the HA’s work, and last
year the government backed most of his recommendations. There are bound to be
suspicions that all the investment is ‘fattening the calf for market’. CHAMPIONING
BRITAIN’S DRIVERS? The DFT hints at a new
public body to oversee the reformed HA, and one which could act as ‘motorists’
champion’. It could have
several roles, such as:
The longer the
list, the greater the chance of a ‘quango’ rather than a small independent
body, and the more likely its bias towards satisfying government rather than
drivers? TARGETS? The DFT
quietly released its first SRN ‘performance
specification’ for 2013-15 in April 2013. Using a lot of governmentspeak
this holds that the HA should maintain its current level of ‘customer
satisfaction’ reported through its obscure national road users’ satisfaction
survey. It suggests
that the HA gradually identifies new ‘customer feedback channels’ and ‘areas
of performance improvement’ |
||
|
WHAT CAN WE DO? Nationally we have got to be where
the action
is. There are key consultations looming, such as on national roads policy,
the future roles of the HA and its overseeing body. In particular, we should stop the
role of ‘motorists’ champion’ from falling to the DFT Motorists’
Forum, which has been stuffed with anti-motorist and other vested
interests. At local level, we need to work with
any allies and use the local media to ensure that RBS are not dictated by
hostile interests. |
||
|
|
|
Campaign index |
‘Fair Deal’ home page |
Site map |
