Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Government
Infrastructure
Investment in motorways is worsening congestion say campaigners ahead of government roads investment strategyM25 traffic queue (CC licensed by Timo Newton-Syms on Flickr)

Investment in motorways is worsening congestion say campaigners ahead of government roads investment strategy

Campaign for Better Transport asks for greater investment in cycling
by Alex Bowden
Fri, Sep 01, 2017 14:58
13

An alliance of 17 environmental groups has urged the government to focus on improving existing roads and motorways rather than building new ones. The Campaign for Better Transport has also warned that without a long-term vision, the second roads investment strategy (RIS2) risks continuing a “piecemeal” approach to cycling and pedestrian improvements.

The Department for Transport is currently in the research phase for the second Road Investment Strategy (RIS2) which will set Highways England’s funding priorities for the period 2020-2025. 

Pointing to a Campaign to Protect Rural England study from earlier this year which found evidence of new roads creating more traffic, the Rising To The Challenge report says that RIS2 should treat increasing road capacity as a last resort.

Stephen Joseph, Chief Executive of Campaign for Better Transport, said: “The Government’s Road Investment Strategy needs to focus on how existing roads can be improved, not on building new road capacity. Our joint report sets out a clear case for a greener RIS2. With a focus on green retrofit and better integration with the rest of the transport network, Highways England can reduce the impact of roads to benefit people and the environment alike.”

The report sets out three key principles for RIS2:

  • Fix it first – focusing on making improvements to the existing network, including green retrofit
  • An integrated strategy – including better links with local and non-motorised transport
  • Environmental leadership – prioritising cutting carbon and air pollution, and protecting the landscape and biodiversity

The report also recommends “considerably enhanced investment” to achieve the aspirations outlined in the government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy.

Roger Geffen MBE, the policy director of Cycling UK, which is a member of the alliance, said: “Current Government emphasis on investing in motorways and trunk roads is misplaced, and worsens the problems of congestion, pollution, road danger and physical inactivity. Instead of forcing councils to pick up these problems, the Government should shift the balance of funding towards cycling and clean transport solutions at a local level.”

Among the group’s recommendations is that Highways England should introduce training programmes and quality audits to ensure that best practice in cycling provision becomes “part of business as usual.”

It also suggests adopting the five principles used by the Dutch when designing cycle infrastructure: coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety and comfort.

Campaign for Better Transport
Roads Investment Strategy
RIS2
Alex Bowden

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

13 comments

Avatar
RMurphy195 | 7 years ago
2 likes

Thre's congestion - and then there's congestion. IME most of the moorway holdups are due to either accidents,or roadworks, or artificial pinch points such as those on the M5 nothbound near J5.

More concerning, for me at any rate, is the increased use of satnav which I feel has resulted in more traffic invading" our local roads, inclusding heay trucks - some of which we saw last yesterday heading from Wythall through Earlswood, towards the narrow bridge near the dam by the lakes!

This traffic is crowding cyclists off the formerly-quiet roads, even on Sunday mornings, and destroying the road edges which increases the cycling hazards.

Avatar
oldstrath | 7 years ago
4 likes

"It's hard to see how building more roads causes congestion"

Really? Let's imagine a government builds a new route between a place with jobs and expensive houses and a place with fewer jobs and cheaper houses, then spends money proclaiming how they've done a great thing that will reduce travel time.

So more people move from the expensive place (Edinburgh, say) to live in the cheaper place (Fife, say) and commute over the new route. And oh look, the posh new bridge us now full, and all the smaller feeder roads are now overfull.

Avatar
madcarew | 7 years ago
1 like

Folks. Correlation does not equal causation. It's hard to see how building more roads causes congestion, but it's not hard to see how building more roads results in congestion. Just sayin' 3

And this is the obvious counter argument to calls on here to build more bike paths. The few bike paths I already use are congested enough, I can't imagine what it would be like if we built more bike paths and they became even more congested. 

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to madcarew | 7 years ago
6 likes

madcarew wrote:

Folks. Correlation does not equal causation. It's hard to see how building more roads causes congestion, but it's not hard to see how building more roads results in congestion. Just sayin' 3

x causes y, x results in y - same thing.

where there is latent demand for something, an increase in the supply of that thing will lead to its consumption and, because the increased supply reduces the cost of the thing, it stimulates more demand and further consumption.

it's like cocaine. And that's why roads have a white line down the middle.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to ConcordeCX | 7 years ago
1 like

ConcordeCX wrote:

madcarew wrote:

Folks. Correlation does not equal causation. It's hard to see how building more roads causes congestion, but it's not hard to see how building more roads results in congestion. Just sayin' 3

x causes y, x results in y - same thing.

where there is latent demand for something, an increase in the supply of that thing will lead to its consumption and, because the increased supply reduces the cost of the thing, it stimulates more demand and further consumption.

it's like cocaine. And that's why roads have a white line down the middle.

there's a very interesting article (pdf) here, written by an economist about congestion and how to deal with it:

https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/getmedia/e6032c0e-133b-4a48-9154-cf86674ee77a/ER-28_4-pp16_20.aspx

 

Avatar
davel replied to ConcordeCX | 7 years ago
0 likes
ConcordeCX wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

madcarew wrote:

Folks. Correlation does not equal causation. It's hard to see how building more roads causes congestion, but it's not hard to see how building more roads results in congestion. Just sayin' 3

x causes y, x results in y - same thing.

where there is latent demand for something, an increase in the supply of that thing will lead to its consumption and, because the increased supply reduces the cost of the thing, it stimulates more demand and further consumption.

it's like cocaine. And that's why roads have a white line down the middle.

there's a very interesting article (pdf) here, written by an economist about congestion and how to deal with it:

https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/getmedia/e6032c0e-133b-4a48-9154-cf86674ee77a/ER-28_4-pp16_20.aspx

 

Yes: I like that. Too much focus has been on the cost of car ownership as opposed to usage in the UK.

Avatar
davel replied to madcarew | 7 years ago
3 likes
madcarew wrote:

Folks. Correlation does not equal causation. It's hard to see how building more roads causes congestion, but it's not hard to see how building more roads results in congestion. Just sayin' 3

And this is the obvious counter argument to calls on here to build more bike paths. The few bike paths I already use are congested enough, I can't imagine what it would be like if we built more bike paths and they became even more congested. 

It's already been explained twice, but the term is 'induced demand'. Initially you're not actually 'creating' the latent demand, but you're enabling it to be met. In this case, building more motorways enables the drivers who want to use them to actually use them - and also stimulates the next generation of demand. It only really tails off when there's too much supply (in this case motorway capacity) for the demand. I don't think anyone knows what that would look like in the UK.

But I'd have more respect for transport policymakers if they just claimed to want to flood the supply - 'we're just going to cover the country in motorways that could never possibly be full'. As it is, tinkering with the motorways here and there is madness.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to davel | 7 years ago
2 likes

davel wrote:
madcarew wrote:

Folks. Correlation does not equal causation. It's hard to see how building more roads causes congestion, but it's not hard to see how building more roads results in congestion. Just sayin' 3

And this is the obvious counter argument to calls on here to build more bike paths. The few bike paths I already use are congested enough, I can't imagine what it would be like if we built more bike paths and they became even more congested. 

It's already been explained twice, but the term is 'induced demand'. Initially you're not actually 'creating' the latent demand, but you're enabling it to be met. In this case, building more motorways enables the drivers who want to use them to actually use them - and also stimulates the next generation of demand. It only really tails off when there's too much supply (in this case motorway capacity) for the demand. I don't think anyone knows what that would look like in the UK. But I'd have more respect for transport policymakers if they just claimed to want to flood the supply - 'we're just going to cover the country in motorways that could never possibly be full'. As it is, tinkering with the motorways here and there is madness.

Indeed, the so-called "predict and provide" policy of the 60s/70s and 80s.  It didn't work then and it won't work now, but it would appear that every generation of politicians and DfT planners have to try it, and waste billions before they admit it was a mistake and they should have spent the money ony public transport, cycling and walking.

Avatar
dodpeters | 7 years ago
0 likes

Given the perceived problem of cyclists being in the way of the important motorised traffic surely good quality segregated infrastructure on busy roads could improve traffic flows.

Avatar
burtthebike | 7 years ago
5 likes

My local council, in a conspiracy with the Department for Roads, is running a consultation about a new motorway junction.  They've already spent £500,000 on a study, and the junction itself will cost £100m at least (one document says £400m).  The consultation doesn't ask whether we need a new junction, it only gives you an option of which route you would like.  The sole justification is that it would reduce congestion, but as every report for the past fifty years has shown, new roads create more congestion, they don't cure it.

I might just spoil my ballot paper so to speak, and demand that they spend £500, 000 on a study to examine what would happen if they spent £100m on cycling.  The council's top priorities for transport, health, pollution, sustainability and ironically, congestion, is cycling and walking, but that's only their policies.  In reality, they constantly make things more difficult and dangerous for them, but citizens have no method of making the council follow its own policies.

Avatar
brooksby replied to burtthebike | 7 years ago
0 likes

burtthebike wrote:

My local council, in a conspiracy with the Department for Roads, is running a consultation about a new motorway junction.  They've already spent £500,000 on a study, and the junction itself will cost £100m at least (one document says £400m).  The consultation doesn't ask whether we need a new junction, it only gives you an option of which route you would like.  The sole justification is that it would reduce congestion, but as every report for the past fifty years has shown, new roads create more congestion, they don't cure it.

I might just spoil my ballot paper so to speak, and demand that they spend £500, 000 on a study to examine what would happen if they spent £100m on cycling.  The council's top priorities for transport, health, pollution, sustainability and ironically, congestion, is cycling and walking, but that's only their policies.  In reality, they constantly make things more difficult and dangerous for them, but citizens have no method of making the council follow its own policies.

Ah: you must live in South Gloucestershire.

(Mind you, talking about local government stitch-ups, have you seen Bristol's proposal for handing more of Broadmead over to "the Bristol Alliance"? Reducing car usage and air pollution by, er, building a new multi storey car park and banning cycling)

Avatar
burtthebike replied to brooksby | 7 years ago
1 like

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

My local council, in a conspiracy with the Department for Roads, is running a consultation about a new motorway junction.  They've already spent £500,000 on a study, and the junction itself will cost £100m at least (one document says £400m).  The consultation doesn't ask whether we need a new junction, it only gives you an option of which route you would like.  The sole justification is that it would reduce congestion, but as every report for the past fifty years has shown, new roads create more congestion, they don't cure it.

I might just spoil my ballot paper so to speak, and demand that they spend £500, 000 on a study to examine what would happen if they spent £100m on cycling.  The council's top priorities for transport, health, pollution, sustainability and ironically, congestion, is cycling and walking, but that's only their policies.  In reality, they constantly make things more difficult and dangerous for them, but citizens have no method of making the council follow its own policies.

Ah: you must live in South Gloucestershire.

(Mind you, talking about local government stitch-ups, have you seen Bristol's proposal for handing more of Broadmead over to "the Bristol Alliance"? Reducing car usage and air pollution by, er, building a new multi storey car park and banning cycling)

Absolutely right, but  could apply to any local authority in the UK.  We need a DfT and local authorities who think that people matter, not just cars.  And we need some method of holding them to their policies.

Avatar
kitsunegari replied to brooksby | 7 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

My local council, in a conspiracy with the Department for Roads, is running a consultation about a new motorway junction.  They've already spent £500,000 on a study, and the junction itself will cost £100m at least (one document says £400m).  The consultation doesn't ask whether we need a new junction, it only gives you an option of which route you would like.  The sole justification is that it would reduce congestion, but as every report for the past fifty years has shown, new roads create more congestion, they don't cure it.

I might just spoil my ballot paper so to speak, and demand that they spend £500, 000 on a study to examine what would happen if they spent £100m on cycling.  The council's top priorities for transport, health, pollution, sustainability and ironically, congestion, is cycling and walking, but that's only their policies.  In reality, they constantly make things more difficult and dangerous for them, but citizens have no method of making the council follow its own policies.

Ah: you must live in South Gloucestershire.

He could equally be describing Cambridge. Here we are, spending £1.5Bn on widening the A14 to just allow more traffic jams, and then spending £500,000 on a "dutch style" roundabout which is nothing like the infrastructure they would install in holland, and has made that part of the ring road significantly more dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians.

Latest Comments