Time Government changed direction on roads policy
Page 49
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE GOVERNMENT'S longawaited Green Paper on tratiSport policy will be published some time soon — probably before the summer. It is to be hoped it will develop a change in direction in Government thinking on roads and ro d transport.
Over the past six years t e strategic trunk route target r England has been reduced ft m 4,000 to 3,100 miles. The t rgets for Scotland and Wa es have been similarly revis d. Trunk road construction xpenditure planned for finan al year 1976/77 has been redu ed by 39 per cent since 1972 afrid now stands at £240rn for E gland, £39m for Scotland rid £34m for Wales at 1974 pri es.
Over the same period he planned 1976/77 subsidy to British Rail has been increa ed by 440 per cent to £314m at 1974 prices. Meanwhile, he anti-road lobby is becom ng more vocal and more effec ive in prolonging the plan ng process for many routes.
Many cities and towns re turning to controls and lim tations on the use of cars nd trucks without relating thi to an overall transport policy nd without properly researc ing the justification of s ch measures and their co sequences. Furthermore, mny urban road schemes are b ing scrapped.
Squeeze on
Government expenditure on transport may be so drasti ally reduced in the next five y ars, starting with the already announced major cuts for 1I77/ 78, that motorway, trunk and principal road plans couk be thrown into chaos as happened with the complete standstill. in expenditure in the winter of 1973/74.
The squeeze on roads and the road transport industy is increasing. The painfully low growth in motorway cons ruction is going to get w rse. Road maintenance will b reduced. Such a state of a airs is in complete contrast t the contribution which roads ake to the nation's economic and social life.
My interest in road tranSport and the provision of high standard roads developed from research into the labour force in South Wales. There is no doubt in my mind, or in the mind of anyone else interested in the region's economy, that the economic growth of South Wales, particularly over the past 15 years, has been limited by a lack of adequate roads, particularly the westward extension of M4.
All too often Wales is seen as a " marginal " area at best in which to locate industry, because of the relative inaccessibility of many areas. Furthermore, it is not always transport costs that worry the managements of firms, they are also concerned by the "psychological" isolation caused by the long journey to England. For too long South Wales has had a sluggish economy and unemployment levels higher than the national average for Britain.
Against this background successive governments in the Sixties could see no urgency for M4, and only now, 19 years after motorway construction first started in England, has construction started on some sections of M4 between Newport and Port Talbot.
On the evidence of South Wales, roads are too important to the economy of the regions and indeed of the nation to be regarded as drains on the nation's resources. They contribute to growth as they underpin the operations of industry. Yet roads have a low priority in the eyes of government.
The trunk road system has been managed in an indifferent manner; as an example of this the allocation of priorities for routes does not always stand up to close examination.
Scarcity
The building of six-lane motorways to Devon and Blackpool, while many industrial areas and ports, such as South Wales, are waiting to be linked into the motorway sys tem, is an example of wrong priorities. While the South West undoubtedly needs better roads, should M5 have been built to such generous standards (dual four-lane carriageways at Exeter) to cater for a peak load in two summer months ? Is it really sensible to improve and build roads all pointing at the heart of London while M25 is eight years from completion ?
Scarce resources should be spent on those urgent schemes which contribute to the efficiency of industry and freight transport. All too often this has not happened, because economic objectives for roads have given way to pressures from local government and environmental pressure groups. Furthermore, roads are not evaluated and justified in terms of the full benefits they providp Assessing the benefits accruing from new and improved roads is difficult. Nonetheless we need better measures if th( case for roads is to 134 strengthened and priorities ar( to be more effectively ordered The Department of the En vironment currently uses cost benefit analysis to assess th worth and justification of roal schemes. But this is essentiall a calculation of time saved an improved safety compared t the full costs of the road.
This kind of assessment is only a part of the picture, and is not the best way of justifying schemes. For example, the Department considers the MI to Al link in the East Midlands to be a long-term, low-priority scheme which should be built to single-carriageway standards. Such a conclusion may be supported by the results of cost-benefit analysis and traffic forecasts, but in terms of the economic benefits to industry, the Midlands and the Haven ports, the scheme may be justified as a high-priority motorway scheme.
Roads are not just a question of time, convenience, safety and traffic flows. With 90 per cent of freight tonnage and 92 per cent of passenger mileage accounted for by road transport, the economic benefits, particularly in the regions, are of more importance and relevance than the gains revealed by cost-benefit analysis. Thus roads should be evaluated in terms of industrial expansion, increased transport efficiency, changed employment opportunities, access to suppliers, markets, ports and airfields.
A more comprehensive analysis of benefits arising from new road schemes could justify a road network with priorities more appropriate to the needs of industry in general and the road transport industry in particular.
Poor deal
Revenue from road user taxation is well over £2,000m annually. The Chancellor allows less than half of this to be spent annually on all costs associated with all roads in Britain. Clearly all road users get a poor deal. If all the revenue were to be spent for example on the trunk road network target of 3,100 miles for England, expenditure could stop in 1979, the money used for other purposes and the savings represented by avoiding inflation would be considerable.
Unfortunately, with only £240m annually being spent on roads in England, the 3,100-mile network will take 20 years to complete. What can be done to speed the completion of the trunk system ?
Given the reality of cuts in Government spending, the completion of the trunk network is going to be severely delayed. Nonetheless, the importance of roads in the economy ought to lend strength to the case for the following annual expenditure levels over the next few years at 1974 price levels. £320m for England (£240m planned for 76/77), £55m for Scotland (E39m planned for 76/77) and £45m for Wales (£34m for 76/77).
If these levels of expenditure can be coupled to a new order of priorities (and some very difficult decisions will have to be made on which schemes to delay and which should be speeded up) a basic network of roads appropriate to the needs of industry could be built within five or six years.
Here are schemes in the firm programme and preparation pool which ought to have maximum priority to complete a basic trunk road system by 1981 :
ENGLAND
1, Extension of MI from Leeds to Dishforth on Al.
2, Completion of outstanding sections of the following routes : M3; M20; M25 London orbital; M27; M40 (Oxford to Birmingham): M42 (M5 to M6 only); M56; M53; M65.
3, MI/M45 to Al link.
4, A406 North Circular Road.
5, A34 Winchester to Oxford and M40.
6, A66 Teesside to Workington.
7, Link road between Al2 and Harwich.
8, A63 from M62 to Hull docks and A18 from M180 to Grimsby, (It is assumed that in England schemes such as M11, M18, M180, M54 and A45 already have priority, and these are regarded as essential to the basic system.]
SCOTLAND
Completion of programmed construction and improvements for A74/M74; M80; M8; M9; M876; A9; A7 and A68.
WALES
Completion of programmed construction and improvements for M4; A48; A40; A470 as far north as Merthyr Tydfil; and A465 between Swansea and Abergavenny.
Many schemes, of course, are left out, such as M42 north of the M6 and the A550 North Wales Coast road, but the schemes above are considered cssential to the needs of indurtry, transport organisations and for the relief of overtrafficked roads. Also, I have perhaps over-estimated costs of construction so that money may be still available for more schemes.
How much?
The above schemes would not require excessive amounts o expenditure, and their benefits to the nation would far outweigh any costs. For example, £320m a year in England (at 1974 prices) over the next four financial years provides £1,280m which would comfortably cover the schemes listed. The majority of mileage in England is accounted for by motorways (roughly 280) which should not absorb more than E900m (at 1974 prices), leaving enough money to cover the A road improvements, and some additions.
A big problem would be the planning process. The answer to this lies in the DoE's priorities and the strength of its commitment to those priorities.
In essence, we could obtain major improvements to the trunk road system with a onethird increase in construction expenditure over a four-year period. We ought to be willing to afford such amounts.
The forthcoming Green Paper may represent the transport industry's last chance for years to reverse the process of cutting road expenditure. A more vigorous and convincing case for roads is needed to explain their importance to government and community.
Better management of the motorway and trunk road programme, speeded up planning, more appropriate priorities and a not very large increase in expenditure over a few years could still provide Britain with an effective trunk road system by 1981, some 10 to 15 years ahead of the present target date.
Who is going to present that case to the Government? And more importantly, who is going to get results ?