new statesman - the road fix

new statesman - the road fix @import url(http://www.newstatesman.com/style/main.css); contact us about new statesman advertising sponsorship archive register login ecopedia carbon counter climate change energy carbon green politics politics the road fix jonathan leake published 09 august 2007 13 comments print version listen rss why do we keep building more roads? because when it comes to planning, the deck is cynically stacked in favour of the road builders - and against the environment. britain's environmentalists have won every argument against expanding the roads network - but still the government keeps pouring billions of pounds into new highways.studies show that new roads do not solve congestion - they just generate more traffic. they add to pollution and, of course, they raise britain's greenhouse gas emissions. road transport already generates 142m tonnes of co2 a year - about 25 per cent of britain's total. as the european emissions trading scheme puts an ever-higher price on carbon, those emissions could cost the taxpayer increasingly dearly.the treasury and department for transport know this, so why do their economists give their blessing to labour's £13bn roads programme?the answer lies far away from public scrutiny in the arcane and biased rules under which proposed roads are assessed. these new approach to appraisal (nata) rules were introduced by la bour in 1998 under the integrated transport policy designed by john prescott, then overseeing environment and transport. most of prescott's plans were chucked out by blair and brown as being far too green, but the department for transport (dft) loved nata and now the reasons are becoming clear.under nata, road builders such as the highways agency and local authorities must submit detailed assessments of proposed transport projects to the government. these are meant to be balance sheets showing the costs, benefits and environmental impacts. in theory this is a good thing, but in reality the rules are designed to make road schemes look better than any greener alternative, every time.take section 3.5.1[1] of the nata rules. this awards extra points to schemes that generate more traffic because more cars and lorries on the road mean more fuel sales - and hence more tax revenue for the government. by contrast, public transport schemes, which take motor vehicles off the road and so reduce fuel sales and tax revenue, have points deducted.then there's the rule on journey times, where planners can claim that a road will bring economic benefits if they can show it will cut the average journey time of each user. every minute saved for a car driver is valued at 44p - which can be offset against the cost of building the road.forty-four pence may not sound much, but multiply it by the number of minutes saved per trip, then again by the millions of drivers using the road each year - and then yet again by 60 years, the notional lifetime of most road schemes. the result, invariably, is a huge positive value for every proposed road.how does this work in practice? look, for example, at the scheme to widen a 56km stretch of the m1 between junctions 30 and 42. the cost to the taxpayer is £1.5bn, which sounds like a lot, but the highways agency has used the nata system to claim that, over the next 60 years, the widening is worth no less than £4.5bn because of the time it will save travellers. since this supposed "benefit" to the economy far exceeds the cost, the scheme has been approved.just how biased this system can be is set out in the nata rules that assign lower values to other types of traveller. a minute saved on a cyclist's travel time, for example, isn't worth 44p but just 28p. a bus-user's time is valued at 33p a minute. the implicit assumption is that cyclists and bus-users make less contribution to the economy than car drivers.roads can be made to look even better. manipulating the accident figures is a typical device. if a proposed road can be predicted to reduce accidents, then each life saved and injury prevented can be given a notional value. the highways agency predicts that another £2.5bn m1 widening scheme (junctions 21-30) would prevent 2,081 accidents over 60 years, of which four would be fatal. this, it claims, adds £105m to the value of the scheme. (it would also, it calculates, generate another £41.3m in taxes from the extra fuel sold.) critics point out that such calculations, based on accidents that have not yet happened on a road that is not even built, are dubious in the extreme.nata assessments have also always avoided costing the most damaging aspects of new roads, such as the impact on landscapes, noise and pollution and, of course, carbon emissions. this means that, even though a road might be an environmental disaster, there are no estimated cash costs to be set against the claimed economic benefits. instead the planners give a qualitative assessment, using terms such as "moderate", "severe" or, worst of all, "very large adverse".these qualitative judgements have in the past been enough to frustrate the road builders. alistair darling rejected "improvements" to the a303 that would have carved a new road through the blackdown hills, an area of outstanding natural beauty on the devon-somerset borders, after seeing in the nata assessment that it would have a "seriously adverse" impact. he apparently did not want to be the minister who overruled such a negative assessment.it should be no surprise that ever since that decision was taken, treasury and dft officials have been working to get rid of such "emotional" analyses by designing a system to assign monetary values to landscapes, tranquillity and biodiversity. the ostensible aim is to make the system more "objective" and number-based - but the crucial issue is what values are assigned to qualities that are inherently priceless. how much might the last dormouse in wiltshire be worth? soon labour's minions may be able to tell you.appearance of objectivity a hint of what lies in store came in the eddington report, published last december. sir rod ed dington, former chief executive of british airways, was commissioned by the treasury and dft to examine the long-term links between transport and the uk's economic productivity and he found that building lots more roads would bring huge benefits to the economy for a relatively low environmental cost. "even after accounting for environmental effects, there appears to be a good case for adding strategic road infrastructure over and above the schemes in the current roads programme," said his report, suggesting that britain's trunk roads and motorways needed 3,350km of new lanes by 2025, at a cost of up to £33bn.but how did eddington account for environmental costs? his report does not explain, but a footnote directs the reader to an obscure research annexe, "transport demand to 2025 and the economic case for road pricing and investment", written by treasury officials. this document doesn't explain how eddington priced the environment either, but it refers the reader to yet another set of reports commissioned by the office of the deputy prime minister in 2002, for a purpose entirely different from road-building.based on these outdated reports, the eddington study assigned a one-off value to the damage done by roads to the landscape of between £900,000 and £1.25m for each kilometre of new lane that is built - a remarkably small sum compared to both the claimed economic benefits and the £40m cost of building the average kilometre of trunk road.(if this approach seems to lack rigour then the treasury report's forecasts for fuel costs are even less rooted in reality. "fuel costs are forecast to fall by 26 per cent up to 2025," they said. "this comprises a 3 per cent increase in fuel prices and a 28 per cent increase in fuel efficiency. an oil price of $35 a barrel is assumed in 2025." oil prices, of course, had already hit $50 a barrel when this report was published last year. they have stayed that way ever since and analysts predict the long-term trend is upwards, meaning roads will become ever less economical.)what eddington and the treasury have done is to give the road builders a way of putting an apparent monetary value on landscape and tranquillity, so creating the appearance of objectivity when assessing the costs and benefits of any new road. in reality, however, the values assigned to landscape and tranquillity are so low that they will always be far outweighed by the apparent economic benefits."the upshot of all these assessment systems is that, however bad a road might look to the people living near its route, and however damaging it is likely to be to the environment, the economic 'benefits' will, on paper, always look much greater," says rebecca lush of transport 2000, who has analysed the reports.the great factor that is missing from these calculations is the cost of carbon emissions. in their appraisals, the road builders have to say how much extra co2 their scheme will generate. the m1 widening scheme above, for example, will generate more than 186,000 tonnes a year extra co2. but no financial cost was assigned to these emissions when this scheme was approved.it wasn't until january this year that the dft told road builders to begin adding a cost of £70 for each tonne of carbon emitted in project calculations. this is still too low to shift the equations away from favouring road building - and it will apply only to new projects. moreover, £70 is an arbitrary sum because no one can agree how to price the the cost of future carbon emissions. some experts have said the real value should be around £1,000 a tonne. once again, therefore, factors that should count against new road projects are undervalued while those that support them are overvalued.the £13bn-worth of new roads approved under the nata system makes labour's roads programme even larger than the one they inherited from the conservatives in 1997. back then, the new labour government cancelled that programme with promises of an integrated transport system.among schemes that have recently been approved is the widening of the m25, which will turn most of london's orbital motorway into an eight-lane highway under a private finance initiative that will cost taxpayers more than £5bn. around leeds, the m62 motorway is approved for a £336m widening. this year the government will decide whether to approve a £3bn project to widen the m6 between birmingham and manchester.undermining railthe highways agency is also seeking approval for the mottram-tintwistle bypass, a short-cut for lorries through the peak district national park. the main economic justification is the notional value, under nata criteria, of the time the road would save for drivers - put at £159m over 60 years. opponents of the scheme say the national park is worth a lot more than that.also on the table are some highly controversial local road schemes such as the dorset county council's weymouth relief road, which would slice through the dorset downs area of outstanding natural beauty, a site of special scientific interest, as well as ancient woodlands. again, the main economic justification is the notional time saved for drivers, put at £275m over 30 years.a secondary effect of the nata rules is to undermine the economic case for investing in public transport. the light rail schemes variously proposed for liverpool, sheffield, portsmouth, leeds and other cities were all turned down for funding under the nata formula, as the government declared they were "poor value for money" and recommended bus schemes instead. another bias in the system is that the government requires light rail planners to contribute 25 per cent of the funding, whereas road builders have to contribute only 10 per cent.there is strong evidence that assessment systems such as nata offer no real guide to a road's future performance. last year the former countryside agency and the campaign for the protection of rural england published an investigation into three completed road projects, comparing the predictions made before they were built with what happened afterwards.it looked at the a34 newbury bypass, the a27 polegate bypass and the m65 blackburn southern bypass, and in each case found that the preliminary assessments had underestimated the scale of traffic growth and the impact on the landscape. they had also made little allowance for the way new roads increase development pressure, often leading to a rash of buildings along their length.the report concluded: "issues of induced traffic growth, landscape impact and development pressures are rarely addressed adequately in the evaluations. it is easy to gain the impression that evaluations are carried out in consultancy back offices for the interests of highways agency officers only."recently the dft said it planned to "refresh" the nata rules to take account of the stern review on the economics of climate change, the eddington report and other developments. what this is likely to mean, say insiders, is the disappearance of "emotive" descriptions of a new road's impact on the landscape and wildlife and their replacement with indices - numbers - that will have far less obvious meaning. the low price placed on carbon emissions of £70 per tonne is unlikely to change.this will open the way for eddington's vision to prevail. carbon emissions, damaged landscapes, lost tranquillity and vanishing biodiversity will all be given such tiny numerical values that they will inevitably be wiped out by the economic "benefits". the economists will be satisfied, the politicians will be absolved - and the road builders will be delighted. jonathan leake is the sunday times science and environment editor post this article to digg del.icio.us newsvine nowpublic shoutwire reddit 13 comments from readers report this comment cybertiger 09 august 2007 why is travelling by train so expensive in this country?the expense is hardly a reasonable incentive to ditch the car, now is it? report this comment penny de abreu 09 august 2007 a superb article which gets right to the heart of the problem. the dft & the government are in cahoots with each other & the road builders.they are complicit in the continued massaging of facts & figures. paying only lip service to caring for the environment & providing attractive, cheap & integrated public transport systems. the cost benefit ratio system which is used to assess whether a scheme has a 'good value for money' tag on it, is in my view nothing short of a scam endorsed by central government. they are on to a win win situation everytime when the so called 'good value for money' representation can start from as low as the value of 2 & ranges up to 12 & may be more for all i know. here in derby an anti road group called derbyheart have been fighting the local council for 5 years against completing an expensive, environmentally destructive, out of date inner ring road scheme with no benefits for the pedestrian; around the tiny city centre. the dft originally gave it a cost benefit ratio of 6 for 30 yrs but it doubled overnight to a value of 12 when they moved the goal posts & changed the time period to 60yrs. it is heavily skewed in their favour & never for the environment, pedestrians, cyclists or publc transport users. after all the economic system we have in place is an insatiable monster & the government for obvious reasons has no interest in changing that. of course emotional language & expressions are an athema in this society & highly inconvenient so it is not surprising they are intent on pushing those out of the equasion. of course we need a sustainable & affordable integrated public transport system & it should be provided in a so called civilised society without question. in derby over the last 30 yrs next to nothing has been done for the pedestrian. the bit of pedestrianisation we have, took place in the early 90's & only because they were forced to do it having exceeded the permitted levels of pollution. it is truly shocking & irresponsible that the true carbon costs of road building are not included in the dft's economic appraisals of schemes. report this comment paddyg 10 august 2007 i learned a lot from this article. it explained much about why we have such an insane approach to transport in this country. it is extraordinary, not to say wicked, that we maintain such an aggressive stance on road building in the era of climate change. the one part that could do with more emphasis is the bit on fuel price assumptions going forward. given the reality of peak oil (see www.theoildrum.com) it is bonkers to assume that fuel costs are not going to rise significantly. even if there were no environmental arguments against road building it would still be insane given the prognosis for oil supply over the coming decades. the same argument of course applies to airport expansion. we urgently need to reduce our dependence on oil especially as uk production is now falling rapidly. in the face of climate change and peak oil our mainstream politicians are taking us in totally the wrong direction. we will pay a heavy environmental and economic price in the years to come for their incompetence and cowardice. report this comment wiltshire lass 10 august 2007 now it all makes sense. for some years i have been wondering why we continue to build new roads when they only increase traffic and co2. there had to be some monetory gain for more than just the road builders but i couldn't work it out. many thanks for the information; i was beginning to think that i had lost the plot. corruption is rife. report this comment kiwiexpat 11 august 2007 with this attitude britain deserves all the climate catastrophe and peak-oil panic that it is going to get. and the same goes for most other english-speaking countries too. switzerland has got a much saner approach. grow rail and curb roads. report this comment dcarins 12 august 2007 it's not that simple, kiwiexpat - the rail capacity in the uk just isn't up to it - we'd have to expand platforms, have clogged up railway lines and we'd all have to pay for the privilege: even more than we already do (and that partly answers the first question about why rail travel is so expensive - because demand far outstrips supply). the "only real solution" in my mind is to curb our consumption and our reckless, selfish misbelief that we have a right to travel wherever and whever we want. we don't. with more and more people going off to university, and an increasingly flexible labour market - as well as increasingly appetite for consumption making us slaves for better jobs - we are far too mobile. thus we abandon family, community and friends and leave to wherever the better job, the "better school" (75% prejudice) the "better area" (85% prejudice) takes us. we swallow the lies of advertising and its sibling, the newspapers, television, the arts - and have our ridiculous notions of "lifestyle": "i want to be someone who travels a lot" - so we travel a lot to become it. or, "i want to be cool, independent and carefree - and that means driving a lot" - so we drive a lot to become it. travel is a massive part of lifestyle - i'm sure we wouldn't think we had a "proper" job if it didn't involve commuting, as it adds status because we need a car. only schoolchildren ride bicycles and walk, don't they now? so to justify the car and the commute, we just move further away. because we can. there's the rub - because we can. because we can travel, we do travel. because we can travel, we live miles away from where we work, where we shop, where our family and friends live, from everywhere. and then, we need to travel - see where i'm coming from? no policy is going to change this. no government, left or right or green or red is going to be able to change this - investment in train travel will just make it easier to travel by train and they will be so crowded they will be even less bearable than they are now. do we want giant conveyor belts criss-crossing the country? no. just stop wanting so much. stop wanting to "become" your "dreams" inspired by adverts and films. just calm down, stay close to your family, friends and community, live near where you work and take it easy. report this comment nsandersen 12 august 2007 > why is travelling by train so expensive in this > country?the expense is hardly a reasonable > incentive to ditch the car, now is it? the railways have been split into many separate companies with opposing interests - some own the tracks, some own the trains and some run the trains. for instance if a piece of track is improved, resulting in time savings, unbelievably the company owning the tracks has to compensate the company running the trains while it is done. all the middle men and the investors behind them have to make money. short-term franchises are awarded by the dft to the company promising the highest returns, not who the passengers want - it is hard to see how this is not linked to ticket prices. safety rules and reluctance to develop and accept new technology, as it only pays off in the medium to long term, mean that trains are heavier and more fuel-hungry than is necessary - because it is cheaper in the short term. but during the 30-40 year life of a train car, 10 tonnes of extra weight (which is the number in question for the popular new desiro trains) will cost a lot in fuel and co2. as was mentioned in a comment above the main railway lines are at or close to full capacity and only the most essential railway improvements are carried out for the reasons outlined in this article. imagine 2 extra tracks on the east or west coast main lines being funded!! that will require a shift in paradigms! another problem is that our economy and politics are often based on exponential growth, which is not possible in the long run. where in england are we going to grow food if it is all covered in cities and tarmac? i definitely see many arguments to reduce travel in the comments above. finally, hardly anything is done for cycling, and it is certainly only done at the convenience of motor traffic. like train ticket prices, this does not make cycling attractive. inner ring roads and big roundabouts are usually not very safe for cycling. report this comment tim holmes 13 august 2007 great article. report this comment cybertiger 13 august 2007 when jesus returns, i think he'll be riding a bike. report this comment ianbaggie 16 august 2007 at the end of the day, it all boils down to the fact that the dft is stafffed by a virulently pro-road, anti rail lobby. until there is a root and branch review of management and attitudes, to include commitments to a post-kyoto mindset, then this outrageous bias will continue. opposition politicans must focus on these 'rules', not the effects, and bring them fully into the public domain, so that a fairer system can be introduced. ian jenkins, wolverhampton report this comment penny de abreu 16 august 2007 although i agree with ian jenkins's comment 16/08/07, pressure needs to be exerted on the present administration & cross party now. it requires cross party agreement; the environment is not negotiable, it is the single most important issue that we face & is the one that cannot & should not wait for the machinations of the political process. real public transport choices should be provided & no more road building, we already have an over developed road system that has carved up the uk & does nothing to curb the voracious appetite of the motoring public & of course it is so in the government's interest to maintain the 'status quo.' a sustainable environment does not negate a healthy economy. penny de abreu, derby report this comment peter steer 16 august 2007 in many of the initiatives being discussed in the uk today, transport, housing etc, the issue of profit distorts reasoning almost beyond belief. if we could somehow marry a nationalised service with the (so called) efficiencies of the private sector then we could just possibly achieve something positive. report this comment andy mcdougall 16 august 2007 if bus users and cyclists are successively further down the pecking order, i'd love to know what a pedestrian's time is notionally worth. i couldn't find any numbers at all on the various government sites. post your comment please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website message: we want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. however, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by using the 'report this comment' facility or by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary. subscribe this week's magazine politics uk politics international politics economy human rights business law & reform environment arts & culture books life & society world affairs columnists blogs ecopedia community & action competitions & offers archive awards & campaigns edge upstarts new media awards policy forum for health tools & services pdf version pda version rss podcasts email updates special supplements stockists archive access 9 years of the new statesman also by jonathan leake a wild goose chase exposed: britain's dirty secret the nuclear wisdom of young blair see everything by jonathan leake related links the curious business of taxation by martin o'neill 12 november meeting ataturk by simon hooper 09 november a royal non-event by owen walker 09 november trains and chains and victorian values in a modern setting 08 november reader offer statement of regret 5 pairs of tickets to see the play enter the prize draw © new statesman 1913–2007 jobs & opportunities terms & conditions privacy policy contact us subscribe advertise about us stockists accessibility designed by wilson fletcher redesign consultant: sheila sang, powwow interactive

Acceuil

suivante

new statesman - the road fix  Daily Fix Coffee  Qwik-Fix qfcoresvc  FixVideoResolutionHowto - Community Ubuntu Documentation  Coop's Daily Joke Fix  Wii Strap Fix - a photoset on Flickr  Flickr: FIX MY PIC  Pants'Fix trousers solution women femme - Vidéos Actualités Mode ...  VICHY THERMAL FIX MAT  Télécharger WinSock XP Fix  fortycentfix!  Free advice on how to fix your bicycle  FIX: Fatal error: Allowed taille de la mémoire de 8388608 octets ...  fix : traduction fix dans le dictionnaire MEDIADICO  xfonts fix  Garniture Mousse pour fix Standard: Acheter dans plus de 270 ...  Quick-Fix Keychain  tono fix you (Tono Monofónico fix you) (sonnerie.01net.com)  Détails constructifs. CYPE. FIX: Planchers Inclinés. Détails ...  WinSock XP Fix 1.2  HOUSE OF FIX - LIMITED EDITION T-SHIRTS ! - Les news de Bikini Test  Firefox Bug 246078 Fix :: Mozilla Stuff :: JohnHaller.com  DIVFIX.MAXELINE.COM - Offical DivFix homepage - divx, avi, video ...  Permanent Fix for the Shmoo Group exploit - The OLD TechLifeBlogged  McKenzie can fix front-row woes - Rugby - Fox Sports  engrais - Bio Fix Grotek  Porte-bidon, bottle fix kit de fixation pour porte bidon  East Bay SPCA  Ultim'Fix Spray Coiffant Studio Line de L'Oréal Paris  PocketPCFreeware : Notification Clear Fix 1.2  XTREM'FIX - produits professionnels Bostik  jem & fix - Lavpris byggemarked  Définition : FIX - informatique Gers, vente, maintenance ...  Forum AideInfo.com :: Voir le Forum - (FIX) Correctifs et mises à ...  IBM - 6.0.2.7: WebSphere Application Server V6.0.2 Fix Pack 7 for ...  Fix-It : Home  Neowin.net - Apple Releases Fix for iMac Freeze Issue, fix not enough  Restaurant Fix Saint Geneys Haute-loire Restaurants Fix Saint Geneys  Développeur C++ /Protocoles FIX/ Bourse - Freelance-info  Forums de wow-europe.com -> [INADMETTABLE] Fix teh banner ffs ...  Avi Fix Repair Joiner : télécharger Avi Fix Repair Joiner  Tax Fix  Jackie Craven: The Fix  BYO - In Memoriam: Dr. George J. Fix III  How to fix the Firefox memory leak (Firefox hack) « // Internet ...  Télécharger Object Fix Zip - 01net. Telecharger.com ...  Theory Fix (Isabelle2005: October 2005)  Fix You de Coldplay : paroles et extrait - Fluctuat.net  MacSlash iMac Freeze Fix Promised  Fix Iraq - Free US Casualty In Iraq counter, join the discussion ...  Pants'Fix trousers solution men homme - Vidéos Actualités Mode ...  Groupe 0-0+, Cabrio Fix de Maxi Cosi : Aubert  FixMyVista.com - Your One Stop Windows Vista Fix It Site  - RSA, The Security Division of EMC  Operator @FIX  Siège coque - Créatis Fix BB Red - Fnac éveil et jeux - achat en ligne  Pattex - Ni Clou Ni Vis Fix & Défix : Toutcoller.com  La Gallerie du Kap Course :: Beach volley by fix!!!  Thèses de l'ULP - Auteur: FIX, Thomas  Offre d’emploi FIX Connectivity Specialist Investment Banking ...  How to fix your iTunes artwork - Download Squad