It makes sense doesn't it? You’re caught in a traffic jam; clearly we
need a bigger road, or a new road, or a road somewhere else. And, of course, if there was another road
then all the other cars would use it, relieving congestion everywhere.
A big, new road is something
simple and obvious; you can put a ribbon across it and declare it open, to a
fanfare of appreciation from an appreciative economic sector who are now happy
(until the next time).
The Department for Transport
in developing its A27 feasibility study also seem to be swallowing all these
old assumptions. But life, however, is
not that simple. Simple solutions to
complex problems are always wrong.
As in the past, environmental
concerns are pushed to one side. One
option for the Arundel bypass will cause the greatest loss of ancient woodland
in Sussex for the last 20 years;
the other will destroy the setting of two villages. But to some this is a price worth paying in
order to relieve congestion and stimulate the economy.
So we get back to the old
“your money or your life” approach of balancing the economy against the environment.
However, whilst the
environmental costs are measurable, severe and obvious; the economic benefits
are shrouded in mystery, assumption and pre-conception.
Economic benefit is based reduced
travel times and perception surveys about how much better business would be if
congestion was removed. Ask a business
how much better life would be and you get an obvious answer; so arguments build
up to support a road-building case.
Businesses, however, need real solutions and views very quickly change
when the reality of a situation becomes clear.
Road building does not
deliver the relief of congestion that is generally claimed – quite the reverse.
Roads generate new traffic
and that creates new, and worse, congestion.
This is not the view of an “anti-road green group” but the clear
conclusion of study after study. For an
excellent outline of this “induced traffic” phenomenon read this article by
Professor Phil Goodwin, a lead author of one of these studies.
“An average road improvement,
for which traffic growth due to other factors has been forecast correctly, will
see an additional 10% of base traffic in the short term and 20% in the long
term”. This is the conclusion of the
Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment in 1994. The same study also looked at roads
surrounding trunk road improvements – their use went up on average by 16%. So, the roads that are supposed to be relived
by a new road receive 16% more traffic than the predicted increase.
Even in the unlikely event
that the A27 flows more freely following enlargement, surrounding roads in
towns, countryside and villages will receive more traffic, more congestion,
more hold-ups and more pollution.
What is more, this sort of
conclusion, with these sorts of figures, has been reached again and again,
on average every 8 years since 1925!
About every 10 years we go
through the same process. First we insist
on forgetting the lessons of the past and push for new roads. Roads get built, the environment suffers more
damage, traffic gets worse and congestion increases. This results in demands for yet more roads and
more environmental damage until, eventually we have to realise the reality of
the situation and seek more sophisticated solutions.
Interestingly, Phil Goodwin’s
article was written in 2006, the last time we went through this repeating
process.
The editors comment at the end
was interesting –
“Don’t lose this – we might need to publish it again in 2014”!!
1 comment:
Nice one Tony!
Post a Comment