The Great Train Robbery?

People are crying out for better transport choices across the country, whether it be better buses, reliable railways, or safer streets. They are also fed up with litter and potholes becoming an all too familiar sight. They want our roads and pavements kept in good order, as the polls keep showing.

Yet in the forthcoming spending review, all of these things are at risk. This is especially true if the government decides to waste money on a number of very expensive road schemes such as the £1.5bn A66 Northern Trans-Pennine, the £1.3bn A12 Chelmsford to A120, the £700m A46 Newark Bypass and the controversial £250m A38 Derby Junctions.

Then of course you have the biggest of the lot, the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC). This is likely to cost nearer £16bn when you include all the additional road schemes that will be needed to cope with the extra traffic it will generate. Some of these were cut from the LTC, to hide its true cost. A glimpse of this was seen when the government said in May that it is looking into expanding the A2 near Dover, while Kent County Council is already trying to progress the A229 Blue Bell Hill expansion, needed to cope with the extra traffic from the LTC.

TAN has estimated that a minimum of £6bn of public money will be needed for the LTC even with private finance. If private finance cannot be found, then up to a staggering £16bn will be required. This is a huge sum of money which if shared around the UK could be a gamechanger for the whole country. Instead this government proposes to waste it on swamping our roads with more traffic, causing more congestion and economic stagnation. It will undermine its promise for more railfreight, and as a result of all the extra HGVs, will make our roads less safe.

To help people understand what the country will lose out on if the LTC goes ahead, we have calculated what the same money would do for the UK if invested in different ways. We have done this across the £6-£16bn cost range:

Investment	£6bn public funding	£16bn public funding
Rail re-openings / schemes (£300m per scheme*)	20 rail reopenings / schemes – or two rail reopenings / schemes for every nation and English region	53 rail reopenings / schemes – or five rail reopenings / schemes for every nation and English region
Electric buses (£0.5m for each double-decker)	12,000 electric buses – or 1,200 electric buses for every nation and English region	32,000 electric buses – or 3,200 electric buses for every nation and English region – almost enough to fully electrify all UK’s buses
Town centre regeneration	Regenerate 120 town centres (£50m each) – that’s 12 for every nation and English region	Regenerate 600 town centres (£50m each) – that’s 60 for every nation and English region
20mph zones (£25,000/km**) with physical interventions (pedestrian buildouts, speed control measures)	240,000km of roads converted to 20mph	640,000km of roads converted to 20mph
Bus lanes (£0.25m/km – basic bus lane***)	24,000km of basic bus lanes – or 2,400km of basic bus lanes for every nation and English region	120,000km of basic bus lanes – or 12,000km of basic bus lanes for every nation and English region
Cycle lanes (£2m/km** – separated high quality cycle lanes)	3,000km of high quality cycle lanes	8,000km of high quality cycle lanes
E-bikes (£1,000 – £3,000)	2 – 6 million e-bikes	5.3 – 16 million e-bikes
Potholes	Would significantly reduce the local roads maintenance backlog in England & Wales****	Would virtually eliminate the £17bn backlog in local roads maintenance in England and Wales****

* This is the cost of the recent and hugely successful Northumberland reopening

** Construction costs loosely based on Typical Costs of Cycling Interventions Interim analysis of Cycle City Ambition schemes (Jan 2017) adjusted for construction inflation

*** Construction costs loosely based on A National Statement on Local Bus Infrastructure Executive Summary (June 2014) adjusted for construction inflation

**** The backlog in local roads and pavement maintenance in England and Wales is £17bn

Investing in any or a mix of the above, would bring far greater benefits to the UK and everyone who lives here. It would improve productivity and bring greater economic returns by improving access to education and work, and reducing inequality. We would have safer streets, while public health would improve, reducing pressure on the NHS. It would also be better for decarbonisation and nature. Most importantly, it would enable everyone to feel the benefit of investment in their area and that they were not being ignored, helping to push back on public mistrust in politicians. That can only be good for democracy.

There is so much at stake here, which is why we have made it easy for you to write to your MP asking them to oppose funding going into the Lower Thames Crossing, and suggesting regionally important schemes that should be funded instead. You can of course add your own suggestions, or include some of the figures above. Please write now, as we want to influence spending decisions in the Spending Review in June.

Photo: Shutterstock.com