MEDIA COVERAGE

New Civil Engineer:

The Transport Action Network (TAN) has demanded the Department for Transport (DfT) cancel £15bn worth of upcoming road schemes tabled by the previous Conservative government, including the £9bn Lower Thames Crossing.

The group’s plea has been published as a submission to transport secretary Louise Haigh’s review of the DfT infrastructure capital spending portfolio.

In July, chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed UK infrastructure projects including the £1.7bn A303 Stonehenge Tunnel “will not move forward” as the government looked to fill a £22bn hole the government discovered in its audit of public finances.

Other money saving measures announced by Reeves in her address to Parliament included the cancellation of the programme to bring disused railways back into service, the A27 Arundel Bypass, curtailment of Boris Johnson’s New Hospital Programme and a pledge to spend less on external consultants.

TAN is now urging the government to include the Conservative’s roads programme for England within this, arguing it is entirely unaffordable.

TAN’s submission reads: “[The roads programme] is an outdated relic of mid-twentieth century thinking, not least in the vast carbon emissions it will generate from both construction and extra traffic.”

As part of the submission TAN is arguing for the cancellation of 16 road schemes. These are Lower Thames Crossing, A66 Northern TransPennine, A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening, A46 Newark, A358 Taunton to Southfields, A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Road, A1 Morpeth to Ellingham, M60 Simister Island, A38 Derby Junctions, M3 Junction 9, M54-M6 link road, A47 North Tuddenham to Easton, Norwich Western Link A57 Link Roads, A46 Coventry Junctions, A47 – A1 Thickthorn Junction and A47 Blofield to North Burlingham.

TAN has noted in its submission only two schemes have a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of more than three and it believes this is being optimistic given costs are likely to have risen since official figures were last published. Most of the roads listed have lower BCRs with many at risk of costing more than any benefits they might realise, according to TAN.

It said: “The £1.5bn A66 scheme has an adjusted BCR of just 0.92 and will harm national landscapes. While an alternative public transport scheme like the delayed Portishead – Bristol rail project will cost around £200M and with an initial BCR of over 2 has a high public value. The scheme would reduce congestion on the M5, reduce car km by 4,000 in morning peak and 2,000 in evening peak on the A369 and provide 50,000 people with a station in their direct catchment. This will deliver modal shift to accelerate decarbonisation,

TAN further believes cancelling the schemes will relieve planning blight and create clarity ahead of the forthcoming 2024-25 spending review and development of the next Road Investment Strategy, RIS3 (2025-2030). The group believes the any available savings should be diverted into fixing the existing road network alongside delivering modern and integrated public transport and active travel networks across the country.

TAN is urging the government to divert some of these savings from cancelling new roads into fixing the existing pothole-ridden network, a pledge from Labour’s own General Election manifesto.

Earlier this week, TAN further responded to former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s lobbying for the £1.5bn A66 Northern Trans Pennine scheme in his Richmond and Northallerton constituency which proposes to dual the remaining sections of single carriageway on this route.

Sunak has claimed the dualling of the road will increase safety however TAN believes that the economic and safety cases for the A66 scheme have been exaggerated.

The DfT was contacted for comment.

TAN founder and director Chris Todd said: “It’s a myth debunked 30 years ago that road building grows the economy and eases congestion.

“Not only is the previous Conservative government’s roads programme unaffordable but even a cursory look at its own traffic projections shows congestion will worsen even if all the new roads were built.

“This review gives Labour a once-in-a-generation chance to consign this outdated and wasteful approach permanently to the past.

“Roads policy for England needs to sit in the context of a national transport strategy, similar to the one developed by the Welsh Labour Government. This was advocated in Juergen Maier’s recent Rail and Urban Transport Review.”

TAN roads and climate campaigner Rebecca Lush said: “Some of the funding saved by cancelling the worst schemes should be put to work enacting the Labour Government’s vision for rail freight as well as public transport and active travel.

“It would make trains, buses, trams, cycling and walking far more attractive propositions and bring both environmental and health benefits. This would be far better value than blowing billions on destructive road building.”

Aslef general secretary of train drivers’ union Mick Whelan, said: “Aslef strongly supports the Labour government’s missions of promoting economic growth while moving rapidly towards Net Zero.

“TAN’s report shows it would be folly to spend billions on new trunk roads which would achieve neither.

“In a time when scarce public funds must be invested wisely, Aslef urges the government to prioritise passenger and freight rail schemes, local integrated transport systems embracing trams and buses and active travel projects.”

Campaign for Better Transport director of policy & research Silviya Barrett said: “Instead of spending on unaffordable and unnecessary road building, the government and local authorities should be improving our existing roads and expanding public transport and rail freight networks as a way to grow local economies and reduce traffic.

“We cannot build our way out of congestion, it’s time for a new approach that’s fit for a sustainable future.”

Rail Forum chief executive officer Elaine Clark said: “Rail Forum welcomes the challenge provided by the TAN submission to the review of the DfT’s infrastructure capital spending portfolio.

“If the UK is to grasp the imperative of decarbonising our economy we must break the cycle of road building that leads to increased road traffic. Taking long-term decisions that unleash the potential of rail, encouraging modal shift and driving economic growth is a far better use of the public funding available”.

Also reported in TransportXtra.