National Highways boss implies that major road building maybe ending

[Bald Rick]

Passenger-kilometers, not trips.

sorry, yes, however it’s the same basis as for the U.K. figures.

 

[higthomas]

Unfortunately, a society as well off as our own requires massive use of motorised transport in order to exist - to do otherwise leads inevitably to a huge reduction in the standard of living of the population. And is often couched by campaigners as implicitly something that will be imposed on the lower orders rather than themselves. Either you accept massive car use or devote a significant fraction of industrial output to the construction and maintenance of a saturation public transport system.

I think one massive aspect of the car vs non-car debate that this thread has generally overlooked is how things like planning MASSIVLY impact on the viability or not of a lot of the ideas being discussed.

In many places in the country that people live those saying that cars are a necessity and cycling/public transport sadly cannot replace them are sadly right.

Take somewhere like Comberton as an example I visited recently. It's 6 miles from the nearest city (Cambridge), similarly from the nearest supermarket. There is a bus, but it's once an hour, and doesn't run in the evenings, or Sundays. Of course people there are car-dependent, and fair enough; I don't begrudge them for it.

But, cars and dependency on them are a bad and unsustainable thing. Both in simple environmental terms (exhaust emissions, tyre pollution, emissions due to their production, use of raw materials, noise pollution, visual pollution) and in congestion terms (our population is growing, our space isn't, therefore congestion is getting worse and that costs us as a society). Now we cannot just build more roads to solve congestion, because sadly induced demand is a thing, so congestion will continue to get worse.

The only solution is to make alternative forms of transport more viable, but that's only really going to work in cities. Imposing a congestion charge, installing bike lanes and improving the buses will work in London; it won't work in Comberton.

Yet, if we look at Comberton, they're building loads of new houses there (https://www.thebirdlings.co.uk/). Now, as we said they can't escape car dependency, and will make Congestion around Cambridge worse, and the cycle continues.

We need a joined up planning system which actually builds houses in places which don't perpetuate the vicious cycle.

Whilst there is some coverage of this, nothing's being done about it because of the politics of it. Cynically I'd say it's because no-one likes new houses anywhere, but it's politically easier to spread them around the country rather than building dense housing in a few locations that will allow for car-free living without the massive inconvenience @HSTEd and other speak of.

Sigh

 

[paul1609]

to be fair, the A3 at Guildford has already had two bypasses.

In reality the original A3 Guildford Bypass has only been further bypassed by a 2 mile stretch at its northern end and about 1/2 mile at the southern end out of a total of 10+ miles. That's why the central section has the awful alignment and Junctions.

 

[Bald Rick]

In reality the original A3 Guildford Bypass has only been further bypassed by a 2 mile stretch at its northern end and about 1/2 mile at the southern end out of a total of 10+ miles. That's why the central section has the awful alignment and Junctions.

I know - I watched it being built!

 

[HSTEd]

Whilst there is some coverage of this, nothing's being done about it because of the politics of it. Cynically I'd say it's because no-one likes new houses anywhere, but it's politically easier to spread them around the country rather than building dense housing in a few locations that will allow for car-free living without the massive inconvenience @HSTEd and other speak of.

Sigh

I'd suggest that actual high density housing like flats and the like are probably not going to be built much in the future.
The cladding scandal and the coronavirus lockdowns have seriously damaged their reputation.

The next time the government locks us all up do you really want to be in a shoebox with no outdoor space?
Or trapped in a building that might or might not be a Towering Inferno-remake waiting to happen?

The challenge is to make suburbia work with public transport - and it has been done before (see Metroland etc)

 

[paul1609]

I know - I watched it being built!

And there was me thinking you were a Northerner.

 

[Bald Rick]

And there was me thinking you were a Northerner.

aye!

 

[higthomas]

I'd suggest that actual high density housing like flats and the like are probably not going to be built much in the future.
The cladding scandal and the coronavirus lockdowns have seriously damaged their reputation.

The next time the government locks us all up do you really want to be in a shoebox with no outdoor space?
Or trapped in a building that might or might not be a Towering Inferno-remake waiting to happen?

The challenge is to make suburbia work with public transport - and it has been done before (see Metroland etc)

High density != high-rise tower blocks. Much of our Victorian housing is that high density. Have a look through https://www.cprelondon.org.uk/wp-co...0/02/DoubleTheDensityHalveTheLandNeeded_1.pdf for some example of nice, high density non-tower block housing.

That report also states that:

reduced cost of servicing and the efficient use of public transport begin to take effect at densities as low as ... 62 dwellings per hectare

If we look at the average density of new housing it's 45 dwelling/hectare, although generally lower (~38 outside London) (See https://assets.publishing.service.g...uploads/attachment_data/file/6937/1558850.pdf)

I'd argue that Metroland is not an example of suburbia that works with public transport. If you live in Metroland, then in most places life without a car still isn't really an option. People are often far from local shops; those shops which do exist within walking distance generally don't have a good selection (because of low footfall), congestion is terrible etc. (FWIW Harrow borough, so classic metroland, has a density of 18). Public transport "works" in metroland for those commuting into the city. It doesn't work for those who want society to be non-reliant on a car.

Also, if new housing was built all in one place (like Metroland) then that's something. It's building a few houses in every village which is the real issue for rural England.

 

[HSTEd]

High density != high-rise tower blocks. Much of our Victorian housing is that high density. Have a look through https://www.cprelondon.org.uk/wp-co...0/02/DoubleTheDensityHalveTheLandNeeded_1.pdf for some example of nice, high density non-tower block housing.

Well most of the examples given are de-facto tower blocks in the senses that I described, and as someone who actually lives in terraced housing I would not really recommend it!
Especially when "community gardens" normally have such strict limitations on uses that they are almost worthless compared to an actual garden - and that's when the state doesn't decide to ban people from using them for months at a time.

Although I am not sure dwellings per hectare is actually a good measure given that public transport isn't an area service system, its predominantly based on groups of linear routes.
Long-thin plots allow public transport at lower apparent density than square-ish plots and road layout has a major impact.

It's not just as simple as "pack in more housing units" - the settlement must be designed from the ground up for public transport use and for maximising efficiency in use of space.

I'd argue that Metroland is not an example of suburbia that works with public transport. If you live in Metroland, then in most places life without a car still isn't really an option. People are often far from local shops; those shops which do exist within walking distance generally don't have a good selection (because of low footfall), congestion is terrible etc. (FWIW Harrow borough, so classic metroland, has a density of 18). Public transport "works" in metroland for those commuting into the city. It doesn't work for those who want society to be non-reliant on a car.

Well local shops only really have a limited future in our glorious future world if delivery service use keeps growing.

If we are going to build housing for the future we should be no more bound to historical "corner shop" models than to car-suburbia models.

Local shops fell out of favour for a reason, and it wasn't an evil conspiracy by car manufacturers - they just weren't very good.

Also, if new housing was built all in one place (like Metroland) then that's something. It's building a few houses in every village which is the real issue for rural England.

Any significant new settlement is impossible to get built in a modern world where its become the standard position of politicians that significant infrastructure is impossible to build.
Even a hundred miles of track is considered to be the megaproject of the century, Milton Keynes or better is far beyond our grasp.

 

[Arkeeos]

This is good, especially given that we now know how harmful global warming is. It would be extremely reckless for us to continue with such projects.

It seems ridiculous to me that looking in places like America they are still building massive Freeways.

 

[The Ham]

ah yes the Dutch. In 2019, 85% of land transport vehicular trips were by car.

source:

Netherlands: Modal split of passenger land transport| Statista

In 2022, of the total passenger-kilometers travelled by land in the Netherlands, roughly **** percent were by non-urban trains and *** percent were by urban public transport.

www.statista.com

whereas in the U.K. in 2018, it was 83%

source:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870647/tsgb-2019.pdf

Although according to here (broadly the equivalent to our ONS):

CBS Statline

opendata.cbs.nl

Car driver and car passenger numbers come in at 67.4% of total km travelled, whilst cycling comes in at 8.1% compared to UK cycling being around 1.5%.

(I'm always cautious about using Statisa as others can't always see what the data says without paying for it).

 

[Sonik]

We need a joined up planning system which actually builds houses in places which don't perpetuate the vicious cycle.

Whilst there is some coverage of this, nothing's being done about it because of the politics of it. Cynically I'd say it's because no-one likes new houses anywhere, but it's politically easier to spread them around the country rather than building dense housing in a few locations that will allow for car-free living without the massive inconvenience @HSTEd and other speak of.

Sigh

Given that the UK has already proposed to ban new ICE cars in 10 years time, and electric cars are a lot more expensive to purchase (not to mention the cost of installing a charger), it's kind of inevitable that alternatives to car dependency will become a big social/political issue in the not too distant future. Honestly I think many in government already see this, but they don't want to push (too hard) an agenda that will not be immediately popular - hence announcing the ICE ban well in advance.

The planning system, and indeed the financial viability of providing alternative modes, will thus catch up.

And developers will likely see the writing on the wall before it happens, because they are after all in the business of building stuff they can sell.

 

[biko]

A bit late to the thread, but very brave of the boss of National Highways to say publicly that there is no future in expanding roads. Because of the very strong feelings of people on car ownership, it is quite a step for someone overseeing road maintenance and building.

sorry, yes, however it’s the same basis as for the U.K. figures

But a totally different basis. Cycling in the Netherlands doesn’t make up a huge part of travelled distance but it does make up a significant share of number of trips. That’s of course because cycling is used mainly for shorter distances.

I think one massive aspect of the car vs non-car debate that this thread has generally overlooked is how things like planning MASSIVLY impact on the viability or not of a lot of the ideas being discussed.

In many places in the country that people live those saying that cars are a necessity and cycling/public transport sadly cannot replace them are sadly right.

Take somewhere like Comberton as an example I visited recently. It's 6 miles from the nearest city (Cambridge), similarly from the nearest supermarket. There is a bus, but it's once an hour, and doesn't run in the evenings, or Sundays. Of course people there are car-dependent, and fair enough; I don't begrudge them for it.

But, cars and dependency on them are a bad and unsustainable thing. Both in simple environmental terms (exhaust emissions, tyre pollution, emissions due to their production, use of raw materials, noise pollution, visual pollution) and in congestion terms (our population is growing, our space isn't, therefore congestion is getting worse and that costs us as a society). Now we cannot just build more roads to solve congestion, because sadly induced demand is a thing, so congestion will continue to get worse.

The only solution is to make alternative forms of transport more viable, but that's only really going to work in cities. Imposing a congestion charge, installing bike lanes and improving the buses will work in London; it won't work in Comberton.

Yet, if we look at Comberton, they're building loads of new houses there (https://www.thebirdlings.co.uk/). Now, as we said they can't escape car dependency, and will make Congestion around Cambridge worse, and the cycle continues.

We need a joined up planning system which actually builds houses in places which don't perpetuate the vicious cycle.

Whilst there is some coverage of this, nothing's being done about it because of the politics of it. Cynically I'd say it's because no-one likes new houses anywhere, but it's politically easier to spread them around the country rather than building dense housing in a few locations that will allow for car-free living without the massive inconvenience @HSTEd and other speak of.

Sigh

Excellent post and I fully agree. I get the sense that although the UK has a pretty good railway network and thus potential to be less car dependent, still the culture is very car-focused. It indeed all starts with spatial planning.

The solution: start to build cycling infrastructure. And then I mean proper infrastructure, not ending just before junctions or dangerously narrow. As building a network of cycling infrastructure is progressing, more and more people will cycle. And yes, removing car lanes is in many places no problem.

Secondly, start thinking about transport before building new housing. So, make sure there is some kind of public transport and try to make things walkable and cyclable. It’s much easier to change behaviour of people when they move to a new house than when they already are used to using a car. Even better is building more densely around stations.

 

[HSTEd]

Given that the UK has already proposed to ban new ICE cars in 10 years time, and electric cars are a lot more expensive to purchase (not to mention the cost of installing a charger), it's kind of inevitable that alternatives to car dependency will become a big social/political issue in the not too distant future. Honestly I think many in government already see this, but they don't want to push (too hard) an agenda that will not be immediately popular - hence announcing the ICE ban well in advance.

Old internal combustion cars are lasting far longer than they did, especialy with the trend to milder winters reducing road salt applications.

All banning new ICE cars whilst electrics remain expensive will do is freeze the ICE car fleet in service.
Also on the charger point - whilst a 7kW charger is best, even a 3kW charge through a 13A socket will add 20+kWh to the battery per night, which is more than enough for most "normal" driving.

 

[stuu]

I think one massive aspect of the car vs non-car debate that this thread has generally overlooked is how things like planning MASSIVLY impact on the viability or not of a lot of the ideas being discussed.

In many places in the country that people live those saying that cars are a necessity and cycling/public transport sadly cannot replace them are sadly right.

Take somewhere like Comberton as an example I visited recently. It's 6 miles from the nearest city (Cambridge), similarly from the nearest supermarket. There is a bus, but it's once an hour, and doesn't run in the evenings, or Sundays. Of course people there are car-dependent, and fair enough; I don't begrudge them for it.

6 miles in Cambridgeshire is very much bicycle distance though. Streetview shows that there is already cycle route from the village all the way into the city. It's not a perfect route but it wouldn't take very much investment to improve it. Google thinks it's 5 miles to the city centre, which someone of average fitness can do in 20-25 minutes. They can probably beat the time in a car at rush hour

Obviously not every journey can be done like that, and some people of course can't do that at all, but some of them very much can and should be encouraged to do so

 

[Sonik]

Old internal combustion cars are lasting far longer than they did, especialy with the trend to milder winters reducing road salt applications.

All banning new ICE cars whilst electrics remain expensive will do is freeze the ICE car fleet in service.
Also on the charger point - whilst a 7kW charger is best, even a 3kW charge through a 13A socket will add 20+kWh to the battery per night, which is more than enough for most "normal" driving.

All true, but it's still inevitable that some drivers will be priced out at the margin (i.e. those least able to afford it). There are a very large number of people (perhaps the majority) who live week to week or month to month with little or no financial reserves.

Used ICE will get more expensive, as there will be diminishing supply, and continuing demand, from those who can't afford to go electric. OTOH, owners of EV will be incentivised to drive more, as the marginal cost of mileage is lower vs ICE. Cue lots of screaming and wailing about EV policy pandering to the wealthy, and subsequent 'leveling down' of those thus advantaged.

Those on lowest incomes will have to be subsidized somehow, and it's unlikely that this will involve cars. Scotland and Wales are already openly pursuing policies to support public transport before roads.

 

[The Ham]

All true, but it's still inevitable that some drivers will be priced out at the margin (i.e. those least able to afford it). There are a very large number of people (perhaps the majority) who live week to week or month to month with little or no financial reserves.

Used ICE will get more expensive, as there will be diminishing supply, and continuing demand, from those who can't afford to go electric. OTOH, owners of EV will be incentivised to drive more, as the marginal cost of mileage is lower vs ICE. Cue lots of screaming and wailing about EV policy pandering to the wealthy, and subsequent 'leveling down' of those thus advantaged.

Those on lowest incomes will have to be subsidized somehow, and it's unlikely that this will involve cars. Scotland and Wales are already openly pursuing policies to support public transport before roads.

There is an arguement that there are too many cars, given that there are more cars than tax payers (and whilst I get that some who don't pay tax own a car the opposite is also true, that there's those who pay tax who don't own a car).

Now whilst the above would hit those who are poor hardest, it could be that they could be better off by getting a lower paid job closer to home if it meant being able to not own a car. As it's not only the (if we assume 2/3rds of the average car ownership cost and based on disk prices froma few years ago, so chances are costs are noticeably higher) £2,000 in car running cost, but also the tax paid in earning that much.

As such without a car someone's pay could be about £3,000 a year less of they could reduce the number of cars that they own in their household by 1 and have the same amount of money.

Obviously if that pay cut could be minimised and still reduce the money of cars that they own then that's going to be better still.

I say that as someone who lives in a rural (government definition of a place with less than 10,000) settlement and we as a family have just the one car and rarely wish we had a second. Of course if we had access to a car club car that would be sufficient.

 

[Ken H]

I grew up in Moortown in N Leeds. There were 4 cross town routes from that area. 9, 38, 44 and 45.
9 was the ring road bus. As the ring road was mostly 1920's the 9 didnt go to many suburban hubs. It still runs but does some diversions off the ring road now to serve hibs better. But its hourly.
38 was Moortown - Whitkirk. So easy access to Oakwood, Halton and crossgates. Gone.
45 did Wortley, kirkstall, Headingley , Meanwood, edge of Moortown, Harehills and Seacroft. Gone
44. Did Stanningley, edge of Rodley, Kirkstall, Headingley, edge of Meanwood, Chapel Allerton, Harehills and the hub where Compton Rd meets Harehills Ln. Still runs as 91
So cross city journies were possible but many are difficult now. Its the same in Leicester.

Too many bus routes are radial now in cities. To make inroads into car journies, more concentric routes must be provided. Or the ring roads will just snarl up with cars even more.

 

[matacaster]

I think one massive aspect of the car vs non-car debate that this thread has generally overlooked is how things like planning MASSIVLY impact on the viability or not of a lot of the ideas being discussed.

In many places in the country that people live those saying that cars are a necessity and cycling/public transport sadly cannot replace them are sadly right.

Take somewhere like Comberton as an example I visited recently. It's 6 miles from the nearest city (Cambridge), similarly from the nearest supermarket. There is a bus, but it's once an hour, and doesn't run in the evenings, or Sundays. Of course people there are car-dependent, and fair enough; I don't begrudge them for it.

But, cars and dependency on them are a bad and unsustainable thing. Both in simple environmental terms (exhaust emissions, tyre pollution, emissions due to their production, use of raw materials, noise pollution, visual pollution) and in congestion terms (our population is growing, our space isn't, therefore congestion is getting worse and that costs us as a society). Now we cannot just build more roads to solve congestion, because sadly induced demand is a thing, so congestion will continue to get worse.

The only solution is to make alternative forms of transport more viable, but that's only really going to work in cities. Imposing a congestion charge, installing bike lanes and improving the buses will work in London; it won't work in Comberton.

Yet, if we look at Comberton, they're building loads of new houses there (https://www.thebirdlings.co.uk/). Now, as we said they can't escape car dependency, and will make Congestion around Cambridge worse, and the cycle continues.

We need a joined up planning system which actually builds houses in places which don't perpetuate the vicious cycle.

Whilst there is some coverage of this, nothing's being done about it because of the politics of it. Cynically I'd say it's because no-one likes new houses anywhere, but it's politically easier to spread them around the country rather than building dense housing in a few locations that will allow for car-free living without the massive inconvenience @HSTEd and other speak of.

Sigh

A fairly obvious idea is to shrink the sizes of most town and city shopping areas, concentrating the shops near the centre. Demolish / rebuild or repurpose those built during the expansions of the sixties and seventies as housing, flats etc. These would suit single people or oaps with limited funds.
One thing that infuriates me is the way housebuilders are encouraged to build (yes encouraged, because councils get more revenue) big 3 and 4 bedroomed houses on green or white belt land. They then call them things like lincoln fields. But they are no different to any other bit of developed land.

 

[Sonik]

A fairly obvious idea is to shrink the sizes of most town and city shopping areas, concentrating the shops near the centre. Demolish / rebuild or repurpose those built during the expansions of the sixties and seventies as housing, flats etc. These would suit single people or oaps with limited funds.
One thing that infuriates me is the way housebuilders are encouraged to build (yes encouraged, because councils get more revenue) big 3 and 4 bedroomed houses on green or white belt land. They then call them things like lincoln fields. But they are no different to any other bit of developed land.

Large new housing estates are fine if they have walkable local ameneties and good access to public transport. Interestingly the 'new towns' built in the 50s & 60s, and even to a certain extent places like Milton Keynes, were designed on exactly this basis, with a selection of local shops, schools, community facilities etc. provided inside each new estate, the housing areas then arranged around a town center with more extensive facilities, this centrally located so easily accessible by bus.

There are still plenty of planning rules around this kind of thing but unfortunately well heeled developers and their lawyers play many games to avoid their responsibilities and local authorities just don't have the same resources to fight it. To be fair there is now at least an acknowledgement from government that things needs to improve hence the focus on reopening stations etc. and housing development around new transport links such as Crossrail.

The biggest bugbear for me is the proliferation of American style 'strip malls' comprising a bunch of huge warehouse shops on the edge of town, surrounded by an enormous car park. They seem to be everywhere these days, these things often gut existing town centers when the anchor stores relocate to the new retail park, and it's exactly the kind of 'infrastructure' that bakes in car dependency. I sincerely hope that online shopping eventually kills these things off.

 

[The exile]

does she still drive? If so, impressive…

Or worrying, depending on circumstances. And before anyone says it, I know a 90-year-old I’d be happier being driven by than a couple of 20-somethings I know.

 

[AndrewE]

Or worrying, depending on circumstances. And before anyone says it, I know a 90-year-old I’d be happier being driven by than a couple of 20-somethings I know.

Agreed: see post #60.

 

[johncrossley]

Going back to the original quote, at some point it was inevitable that major road building would largely come to an end. Most significant places are now served by motorways or other main roads. Yes there are pinch points and places that want a bypass etc. But the network is more or less complete. There will always be congestion. It is just something that people have put up with in the past and will continue to in the future.

 

[trebor79]

Newark (have they started that?)

I was living there when the A46 towards Nottingham was dualled. "Oh we've done modelling and the single carriageway with all the roundabouts around the north side of town won't be a bottleneck".
Surprise surprise the modelling resembled a pile partially digested grass steaming gently in a field.

 

[ABB125]

I was living there when the A46 towards Nottingham was dualled. "Oh we've done modelling and the single carriageway with all the roundabouts around the north side of town won't be a bottleneck".
Surprise surprise the modelling resembled a pile partially digested grass steaming gently in a field.

Of course it did! That's the whole point of modelling - to be wrong...

 

[biko]

I was living there when the A46 towards Nottingham was dualled. "Oh we've done modelling and the single carriageway with all the roundabouts around the north side of town won't be a bottleneck".
Surprise surprise the modelling resembled a pile partially digested grass steaming gently in a field.

Probably induced demand wasn't included in the model, happens all the time in models.

 

[Sonik]

Going back to the original quote, at some point it was inevitable that major road building would largely come to an end. Most significant places are now served by motorways or other main roads. Yes there are pinch points and places that want a bypass etc. But the network is more or less complete. There will always be congestion. It is just something that people have put up with in the past and will continue to in the future.

It's also public acceptance of schemes, which has been much diminished since the late 90s due to land take and environmental concerns. Much of what has been done since then is widening existing roads, bypasses or relatively short link roads. In previous decades road building was based on the premise of 'predict and provide' but it's been fully accepted for a long time now that it's not a sustainable plan.

Look at all the outcry over HS2 and imagine what it would be like if an 8 lane motorway of similar scale was proposed. Just not going to happen.

The existence of HS2 is essentially a tacit acknowledgement that road building was finished. Railways still cause induced demand etc. but the benefit/impact ratio (i.e. passenger capacity vs land take) is much better.

 

[DDB]

There is a massive new development planned just south of Nottingham in a location ideal for connecting to the tram network. However all that is/can be done is to reserve the route. What should be done is to build the tram first so it exists as soon as people move in. What will actually happen is people will have lived there several years and formed habits before funding for the extention is found. Also they will get annoyed by the tram construction.


https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/tram-extension-one-step-closer-3168883

Story describes planning condition being placed to reserve the route which then suggests it is a front runner for the next tram extension.

 

[The Ham]

There is a massive new development planned just south of Nottingham in a location ideal for connecting to the tram network. However all that is/can be done is to reserve the route. What should be done is to build the tram first so it exists as soon as people move in. What will actually happen is people will have lived there several years and formed habits before funding for the extention is found. Also they will get annoyed by the tram construction.


https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/tram-extension-one-step-closer-3168883

It very much depends on who is involved in the scheme, some developers and engineers are better at looking at such things than others.

It also depends on the council, again with some being better than others.

For example it should be possible for the funding to be provided in stages (with time based payments so developers can't just part build a site and not fund something) and government build it ready for the development.

 

[trebor79]

Probably induced demand wasn't included in the model, happens all the time in models.

It was a bottleneck even before the dialling project. How they thought a dualled A46 to Leicester and Nottingham, in conjunction with the existingdualled A4y to Lincoln and A1 wouldn't cause an issue on the single carriageway road with 3 busy roundabouts linking it all up. Just laughable. Blind Freddie could have told them it wouldn't work.