Budget: Another £30bn for roads

[DynamicSpirit]

Please show where your views differ. They seem clear to me.

You claimed in post #45: stop spending any money on roads
My view: Spending money specifically on increasing road capacity in order to solve congestion is invariably counter-productive and a waste of money because it usually causes even more congestion after a couple of years. (Doesn't mean you shouldn't spend any money on roads because clearly roads need to be maintained etc.)

You claimed: roads will become bad and crowded / people wont be able to get around (in the context that suggests that's what I want, or at least that will be the consequence of not building roads)
My view: I want roads to be as uncrowded and free-flowing as possible. Loads of research and analysis of the effects of different transport policies in the UK and across many other countries suggests that the only way to achieve that is to invest in public transport (possibly accompanied by measures to discourage driving). Trying to achieve free-flowing roads by investing in road-building is basically a waste of money because it will fail.

You claimed: in't trains BRILLIANT!
My view: Railways are usually much more deserving of investment than roads because investing in railways actually does allow people to get around better and more quickly - which investing in roads usually doesn't (because the extra road capacity is cancelled out by the mode-shift the capacity induces). Obviously there are exceptions. You do need a certain population density for railways to be worth while etc. etc.

And by the way, my opposition to the £30bn announced for roads is because, although the details haven't been made clear, it's pretty obvious that the intention is precisely to increase road capacity in what will turn out to be a fruitless attempt to solve congestion. It's what the Tories do, and you can't seriously spend that amount of money all in one go on routine maintenance. Embedded in that is, I believe, £420M to fix potholes. I have no problem with that - but notice that that's not much more than 1% of the amount for roads that's been announced. Obviously begs the question of what the other 99% is for.

 

[DarloRich]

The road lobby is out in force tonight.

Spend more money on roads
Roads become more crowded
Shifts problem farther down the road
Repeat ad nauseum at vast expense
Solves nothing
Meanwhile alternatives are under-invested and wither.

And this is a transport "policy"?

How about some clear thinking?

road lobby? Don't think so. Just fair and sensible. Keep trying though.

 

[DarloRich]

My view: Spending money specifically on increasing road capacity in order to solve congestion is invariably counter-productive and a waste of money because it usually causes even more congestion after a couple of years. (Doesn't mean you shouldn't spend any money on roads because clearly roads need to be maintained etc.)

so your view is the managed decline of the road network by only spending money on repairing current roads.

You claimed: roads will become bad and crowded / people wont be able to get around (in the context that suggests that's what I want, or at least that will be the consequence of not building roads)

My view: I want roads to be as uncrowded and free-flowing as possible. Loads of research and analysis of the effects of different transport policies in the UK and across many other countries suggests that the only way to achieve that is to invest in public transport (possibly accompanied by measures to discourage driving). Trying to achieve free-flowing roads by investing in road-building is basically a waste of money because it will fail.

By removing all cars? Do you accept the concept of personal choice? Do you support forcing people to give up their car?

BTW - these are fine words which but mean nothing. HOW do you propose to persuade people to give up their evil cars and all of that evil freedom and evil personal choice ( which you seem to hate) and use the bus instead. Perhaps you favour a form of transport communism where decent sensible people like you get to impose your views on others.

You claimed: in't trains BRILLIANT!
My view: Railways are usually much more deserving of investment than roads because investing in railways actually does allow people to get around better and more quickly - which investing in roads usually doesn't (because the extra road capacity is cancelled out by the mode-shift the capacity induces). Obviously there are exceptions. You do need a certain population density for railways to be worth while etc. etc.

In your view. I suspect people who never travel by train might disagree. That is the issue. It might shock you but there are people who never use the train because they consider their cars a better, more flexible and cheaper alternative. How do you change those views?

And by the way, my opposition to the £30bn announced for roads is because, although the details haven't been made clear, it's pretty obvious that the intention is precisely to increase road capacity in what will turn out to be a fruitless attempt to solve congestion. It's what the Tories do, and you can't seriously spend that amount of money all in one go on routine maintenance. Embedded in that is, I believe, £420M to fix potholes. I have no problem with that - but notice that that's not much more than 1% of the amount for roads that's been announced. Obviously begs the question of what the other 99% is for.

For building new roads, for building by pass roads, for dualing roads like the A66 and for dealing with capacity problems on the trunk road/motorway network. Surely that is obvious.

Personally, there's leisure activities I do for which there's little realistic alternative but to use the car - although I do use the train combined with bike occasionally if more convenient. In reality this won't change pretty much no matter what happens!

and this is the point posters like @DynamicSpirit & @muddythefish don't want to acknowledge. They don't want you doing your activities if you dare use the car. They want to decide for you how you live your life.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think there are a few people missing a few points about the Budget announcement.

1) this is not new money. Almost all of it had been previously announced.

2) the majority of it (£25bn) is the funding ceiling for the Roads Investment Strategy 2, RIS2. This is the second 5 year funding period for Highways England (2020-2025) and the process for developing it is, in principle, the same as the Control Period process for Network Rail.

3) RIS 2 includes capital and operational costs for Highways England, ie including maintenance and renewal of existing roads, control centres, and 5,000 staff. It also includes specific funds for environmental improvements, safety improvements, and projects to improve cycling provision and bus lanes etc. It is not all about building new roads, indeed last year rather less than half of the budget was spent on ‘enhancement’ projects, and much of that was on existing roads. This document provides more detail and is worth a read. https://assets.publishing.service.g...estment-strategy-2-governments-objectives.pdf

4) note that for the almost co-incident CP6 (2019-24), Government has allocated Network Rail £48bn.

 

[DarloRich]

4) note that for the almost co-incident CP6 (2019-24), Government has allocated Network Rail £48bn.

ssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Kite159]

But a huge proportion of the population are within cycling distance from the railway station. Yes, there are hills. Yes, cycle provision is poor. But now we have electric bikes hills are irrelevant. And lack of cycle provision could be fixed. In the Netherlands, it is possible to go almost anywhere to anywhere in the country by cycling to the station and hiring a bike at the other end, or leaving another bike in secure parking at the other end.

Just what someone really wants, a bike ride at six o'clock in the morning along dark hilly roads (for there be no street lighting), when it be cold & wet. A hard day at work in London to come back to ride back home along dark hilly roads, in the cold & wet at around seven in the evening...

... Just where do I sign up?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think there are a few people missing a few points about the Budget announcement.

1) this is not new money. Almost all of it had been previously announced.

2) the majority of it (£25bn) is the funding ceiling for the Roads Investment Strategy 2, RIS2. This is the second 5 year funding period for Highways England (2020-2025) and the process for developing it is, in principle, the same as the Control Period process for Network Rail.

3) RIS 2 includes capital and operational costs for Highways England, ie including maintenance and renewal of existing roads, control centres, and 5,000 staff. It also includes specific funds for environmental improvements, safety improvements, and projects to improve cycling provision and bus lanes etc. It is not all about building new roads, indeed last year rather less than half of the budget was spent on ‘enhancement’ projects, and much of that was on existing roads. This document provides more detail and is worth a read. https://assets.publishing.service.g...estment-strategy-2-governments-objectives.pdf

4) note that for the almost co-incident CP6 (2019-24), Government has allocated Network Rail £48bn.

Hahaha! Yes, doing a bit of checking, it appears that you are correct. I guess I should've thought - given that £30bn would be an absolutely extraordinary amount of money to announce if it was new money. Somewhat amusingly, it looks like Phillip Hammond perhaps tried to get new publicity by re-announcing that money, but it's turned into somewhat bad publicity by upsetting the more environmentally minded people.

That doesn't of course change the wider discussion in this thread about the principles of road-building, but obviously does mean that the budget announcement is much less bad from my point of view (and perhaps less good from the point of view of any petrol-heads ) Clearly, the Government are still pressing ahead with some road-building, but nothing like the £30bn worth that the rather misleading budget announcement gave the impression of.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

so your view is the managed decline of the road network by only spending money on repairing current roads.

I'm not sure decline is the right word. In my view, the best transport policy would be to (roughly) maintain/update the current road network, while at the same time investing heavily in public transport (and walking/cycling facilities), running a publicity campaign to educate more people about the problems that driving causes, and probably some measures to discourage driving (one that comes to mind would be compelling retail parks to charge for car parking). The aim would probably be to start seeing an annual reduction of, maybe 1-2% or so in car mileage. With the road network being roughly maintained, that would gradually translate into much more free-flowing roads - especially since the bulk of any reduction in car journeys would probably be in cities, where congestion is worst. That would mean a managed decline in car journeys but not in the road network. Other related measures I'd like to see would be a wholesale reform of the business rate system, so that businesses would tend to pay higher rates if they are located in areas inaccessible to public transport (the opposite to what I believe currently tends to happen), and planning reform so that access to good public transport features very strongly in whether planning permission is granted for houses etc.

By removing all cars? Do you accept the concept of personal choice? Do you support forcing people to give up their car?

Where did I say 'removing all cars'? (Clue: I didn't). This discussion would really go a lot better if you could refrain from continually making out that I believe things that I don't believe.

BTW - these are fine words which but mean nothing. HOW do you propose to persuade people to give up their evil cars and all of that evil freedom and evil personal choice ( which you seem to hate) and use the bus instead. Perhaps you favour a form of transport communism where decent sensible people like you get to impose your views on others.

Where did I say that things like freedom and choice are evil? (Clue: I didn't). Once again, this discussion would really go a lot better if you could refrain from continually making out that I believe things that I don't believe.

In your view. I suspect people who never travel by train might disagree. That is the issue. It might shock you but there are people who never use the train because they consider their cars a better, more flexible and cheaper alternative. How do you change those views?

No, it doesn't shock me at all. I'm perfectly well aware that many people prefer their cars. How do you change those views? By educating people about the harm that unnecessary car use does to other people, by financial incentives to use public transport, and by better planning when building new houses and offices etc. so that over time, fewer journeys have to be made by car.

By the way, you keep going on about 'freedom' and 'choice'. Have you thought about the problem of people being forced to use cars whether they like it or not because of lack of public transport? Have you thought about the freedom of people not to be choked by pollution, and not to have the places they live in ruined by continual traffic? Where is your defence of freedom for those people?

For building new roads, for building by pass roads, for dualing roads like the A66 and for dealing with capacity problems on the trunk road/motorway network. Surely that is obvious.

No, it's only 'obvious' if you don't think it through (or don't check the extensive academic research on the topic). If you do, then you will find that what seems 'obvious' to you is in fact false. The problem is that when you do things like dual roads or increase capacity on the motorway network, you bring new traffic onto the roads. That new traffic makes the towns and cities where most journeys end more congested, so any gains in travel time from the road-dualling/whatever gets cancelled out by the slower journeys as soon as you come off the big dual carriageways and try to get to your final destination in the town. Plus, of course, quality of life declines for everyone living in those towns.

 

[bramling]

Just what someone really wants, a bike ride at six o'clock in the morning along dark hilly roads (for there be no street lighting), when it be cold & wet. A hard day at work in London to come back to ride back home along dark hilly roads, in the cold & wet at around seven in the evening...

... Just where do I sign up?

It does amaze me how many people at my local station get off the train and straight into a taxi, often for pretty minimal journeys where it would be just as quick to walk. My neighbour does this - needless to say, from the baby-boom generation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just what someone really wants, a bike ride at six o'clock in the morning along dark hilly roads (for there be no street lighting), when it be cold & wet. A hard day at work in London to come back to ride back home along dark hilly roads, in the cold & wet at around seven in the evening...

... Just where do I sign up?

Just think of the adrenaline flow when there can be the fun of your front wheel finding itself in a pothole that you missed in those dark morning hours or being decamped from your bicycle by a chance coming together with a passing road vehicle, even more so when coupled with the added attractions of heavy rainfall or icy roads in winter (not all side roads are gritted).

 

[radamfi]

Just what someone really wants, a bike ride at six o'clock in the morning along dark hilly roads (for there be no street lighting), when it be cold & wet. A hard day at work in London to come back to ride back home along dark hilly roads, in the cold & wet at around seven in the evening...

... Just where do I sign up?

We are talking about where cycling is a viable option. So we are mostly talking about within urban areas, so everything should be well lit. Hills are irrelevant because of electric bikes. A very large proportion of Dutch people (something like 40%) access the rail station by bicycle.

 

[radamfi]

Just think of the adrenaline flow when there can be the fun of your front wheel finding itself in a pothole that you missed in those dark morning hours or being decamped from your bicycle by a chance coming together with a passing road vehicle, even more so when coupled with the added attractions of heavy rainfall or icy roads in winter (not all side roads are gritted).

In the Netherlands, they ensure that cycle paths are safe throughout the winter. Given that almost all school children cycle to school, that is essential.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the Netherlands, they ensure that cycle paths are safe throughout the winter. Given that almost all school children cycle to school, that is essential.

Comparison with what occurs in the Netherlands, Burkina Faso, Burundi, etc, is meaningless. This thread only concerns itself in what actually occurs in Britain.

 

[radamfi]

Comparison with what occurs in the Netherlands, Burkina Faso, Burundi, etc, is meaningless. This thread only concerns itself in what actually occurs in Britain.

But we are talking about what could potentially be done.

 

[JamesT]

A shift to public transport could require an increase to the road maintenance budget.
I’m thinking here mostly of buses as the most likely way to get people out of their cars.
Road wear is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. Cars are much lighter, big lorries generally spread their weight over more axles. But buses are getting increasingly heavy with the move to hybrid or electric power and carrying batteries around.
In Oxford it’s noticeable that some of the most torn up roads are around the bus stops.
Cycling is obviously a much better solution, but even there you need a high quality well maintained surface to attract people. A muddy potholed cycle path or cycle lane is not going to get people out of their cars.

 

[DarloRich]

I do not wish to get into trouble so will withdraw from this section and not comment further. I disagree with much of what @DynamicSpirit has posted. I believe it is laudable and worthy but fantasy island stuff that takes no consideration of human behaviours or personal choice.

I suggest he goes and talks to the communities along the A66 pushing for a by pass round their villages and tell them why they cant have one and at the same time extol the virtues of them having a better bus service. Their response might be illustrative.

 

[Geezertronic]

Not all journeys are possible by public transport. For work, I have an ever-increasing amount of kit I need to take with me and to take it on public transport is impossible. I used to take the train from Birmingham International to Euston with two rucksacks which was fun particularly when I had to get the tube at the Euston end. Also I have been priced off the train as it is cheaper for me to claim 25ppm than it is to get the train when travelling from Birmingham to Docklands unless I travel off-peak which is not an option

 

[Meole]

Lifestyle changes increase road use through for example the huge rise in grocery delivery vans from all the major food retailers, other on line shopping produces a plethora of delivery contractors operating out of regional depots all of necessity supplied by road.
Many councils have cut rural bus subsidies forcing people to buy and use cars as services cease.

 

[underbank]

(one that comes to mind would be compelling retail parks to charge for car parking)

Only if the retail park in question had good/regular public transport on a variety of routes so it was actually feasible for people to go there by bus. But even then, not so good if you're buying big/bulky items is it?

 

[underbank]

Hills are irrelevant because of electric bikes.

Depends on how steep they are. Some in Northern towns and cities are pretty steep so would still need to be walked even with electric motors.

 

[radamfi]

Depends on how steep they are. Some in Northern towns and cities are pretty steep so would still need to be walked even with electric motors.

It depends on the bike. I've got a Dutch electric bike so hasn't got a particularly powerful motor as it isn't required in most of the Netherlands, but it easily gets me up pretty much any hill up to about 12% gradient. Even where you have very steep hills the steepest bit is usually only for a short section. It would be reasonable to assume that the vast majority of the population would never need to get up a hill too steep for the average electric bike.

 

[bramling]

for example the huge rise in grocery delivery vans from all the major food retailers.

This is one which really irritates me. The amount of these vans has snowballed in the last few years. Can't people be bothered to do their own shopping? They're always causing issues with the vans being parked in awkward places whilst unloading too.

 

[telstarbox]

Those vans are generating less vehicle miles than the same customers driving to and from the supermarkets themselves.

 

[underbank]

This is one which really irritates me. The amount of these vans has snowballed in the last few years. Can't people be bothered to do their own shopping? They're always causing issues with the vans being parked in awkward places whilst unloading too.

Hang on, I thought people were being told to ditch their cars and use public transport instead. You can't carry your weekly/monthly "big shop", so without a car, you need it delivered.

 

[Darandio]

Hang on, I thought people were being told to ditch their cars and use public transport instead. You can't carry your weekly/monthly "big shop", so without a car, you need it delivered.

You aren't allowed to use your car to go shopping, that is bad for the environment. Then you have a small child in a pushchair so you cannot use public transport because when you are loaded with bags and cannot fold the pushchair you are nothing more than an inconvenience and a bad parent. That means you are left with home delivery, but the same lobbyists who say you shouldn't use your car also say you shouldn't use home delivery because the increasing fleet of vans are bad for the environment too. You are left with a daily trip to the overpriced local shop, but that has now closed because of the supermarket. Your only option is to starve.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is one which really irritates me. The amount of these vans has snowballed in the last few years. Can't people be bothered to do their own shopping?

No, as a matter of fact I can't be bothered to do that, and am more than happy to create employment by paying someone else to do it instead. Going to a supermarket is a very poor use of my time indeed.

It's only a return, in a slightly different way, to the days before supermarkets, in any case. People used to have home deliveries of all sorts e.g. by the local butcher and baker, and of course milk.

 

[SS4]

This is one which really irritates me. The amount of these vans has snowballed in the last few years. Can't people be bothered to do their own shopping? They're always causing issues with the vans being parked in awkward places whilst unloading too.

When you can get your shopping delivered to your house for less than the price of a coffee it's really no contest. That goes double for items which are too bulky/heavy to walk/bus home with

 

[bramling]

Those vans are generating less vehicle miles than the same customers driving to and from the supermarkets themselves.

Surely that depends on how much goods is being delivered though? It might save vehicle miles if someone has their weekly shop delivered in this way, assuming the weekly shop journey wasn't combined with another journey (e.g. done on the way home from work), however it certainly won't be saving vehicle miles if people take the opportunity to make very small orders taking advantage of the convenience of not having to bother going out. It won't take too many of the latter to cancel out any saving from people driving to the supermarket, and it certainly won't save miles from people who would otherwise have walked.

 

[Clip]

Surely that depends on how much goods is being delivered though? It might save vehicle miles if someone has their weekly shop delivered in this way, assuming the weekly shop journey wasn't combined with another journey (e.g. done on the way home from work), however it certainly won't be saving vehicle miles if people take the opportunity to make very small orders taking advantage of the convenience of not having to bother going out. It won't take too many of the latter to cancel out any saving from people driving to the supermarket, and it certainly won't save miles from people who would otherwise have walked.

One van can have about 20-30 orders on it though so there you are taking a possible 30-40 car journeys off the road

 

[Geezertronic]

If you order food from Amazon, the delivery is delivered by car and in brown paper bags. Even if the actual goods have come from Morrisons