carltonreid
Roads minister: "Government is not bringing in a programme of large-scale new road building"
We’re not returning to ‘outdated’ predict and provide, says Robert Goodwill MP, Parliamentary under secretary of state for transport, the minister for roads and for cycling, too. He says this in a letter to Transport Xtra Magazine.
+++
I write following your coverage of the draft National Networks National Policy Statement (“Rethink ‘predict and provide’ roads policy, profession tells DfT” LTT 07 Mar).
The Government is not bringing in a programme of large-scale new road building, or working to an outdated “predict and provide” model. The draft National Policy Statement (NPS) very clearly rules this out. Our investment is foremost about improving the existing network, bringing forward schemes to improve the strategic road network where there is a strong justification based on economic benefits and quality of life, taking full account of environmental and social impacts. Almost 40% of the funding over this Parliament and next is for maintenance. Our investment in road improvements sits alongside huge investment that will transform our rail network, support sustainable transport choices and protect the environment, including supporting the uptake of ultra-low emission and electric vehicles.
++++
The letter Goodwill is referring to was packed with experts telling the Government they’re heading for disaster, if they build more roads. The experts included
transport planners, local authorities, and public transport and environmental lobby groups.
The draft NPS, on which consultation closed last week, predicts that road traffic will rise 42% in England between 2010 and 2040. This is the NPS that believes cycle use will drop, so won’t plan for cycling.
The Transport Planning Society says the road sections of the document are “one of the weakest policy statements of recent years”.
“Parts of the document dismiss key policy elements as simply irrelevant, including demand management and the use of sustainable modes. Land use planning, either to minimise the need to travel, or locate travel generators close to sustainable networks is completely missing.”
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group (TAG) calls for the statement to be totally rewritten. “So much is wrong with the starting point for this statement that it would be very damaging for the country and its people without a fresh start. The use of national traffic forecasts to continue (or revive) a policy of predict and provide is seriously flawed. The potential demand for increased travel is possibly true but a predict and provide model, even for trunk roads, is highly undesirable. It is deeply concerning that phrasing of the document belittles the benefits of investment in non-car based modes of transport,” says TAG.
The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation said: “CIHT does not think the document clearly establishes the need for development of the national networks, particularly on the road network. The potential for modal shift from road to rail for passengers is written off in simplistic terms, taking no account of regional and local variations. It does not address demand management in any detail.”
Dorset County Council says: “The outcome [of the NPS] is likely to be increased pressure on local roads, whilst local highway authorities are effectively starved of the funds that will be needed to resolve the resultant urban congestion. We do not think it sensible to devise an NPS that does not include strategies for the 98% of the road network outside Highways Agency control.”
On the other hand, motoring groups have welcomed the NPS. The RAC Foundation says it can find “little to disagree with” in the draft NPS.
www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/new...
Roads minister: "Government is not bringing in a programme of large-scale new road building"
We’re not returning to ‘outdated’ predict and provide, says Robert Goodwill MP, Parliamentary under secretary of state for transport, the minister for roads and for cycling, too. He says this in a letter to Transport Xtra Magazine.
+++
I write following your coverage of the draft National Networks National Policy Statement (“Rethink ‘predict and provide’ roads policy, profession tells DfT” LTT 07 Mar).
The Government is not bringing in a programme of large-scale new road building, or working to an outdated “predict and provide” model. The draft National Policy Statement (NPS) very clearly rules this out. Our investment is foremost about improving the existing network, bringing forward schemes to improve the strategic road network where there is a strong justification based on economic benefits and quality of life, taking full account of environmental and social impacts. Almost 40% of the funding over this Parliament and next is for maintenance. Our investment in road improvements sits alongside huge investment that will transform our rail network, support sustainable transport choices and protect the environment, including supporting the uptake of ultra-low emission and electric vehicles.
++++
The letter Goodwill is referring to was packed with experts telling the Government they’re heading for disaster, if they build more roads. The experts included
transport planners, local authorities, and public transport and environmental lobby groups.
The draft NPS, on which consultation closed last week, predicts that road traffic will rise 42% in England between 2010 and 2040. This is the NPS that believes cycle use will drop, so won’t plan for cycling.
The Transport Planning Society says the road sections of the document are “one of the weakest policy statements of recent years”.
“Parts of the document dismiss key policy elements as simply irrelevant, including demand management and the use of sustainable modes. Land use planning, either to minimise the need to travel, or locate travel generators close to sustainable networks is completely missing.”
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group (TAG) calls for the statement to be totally rewritten. “So much is wrong with the starting point for this statement that it would be very damaging for the country and its people without a fresh start. The use of national traffic forecasts to continue (or revive) a policy of predict and provide is seriously flawed. The potential demand for increased travel is possibly true but a predict and provide model, even for trunk roads, is highly undesirable. It is deeply concerning that phrasing of the document belittles the benefits of investment in non-car based modes of transport,” says TAG.
The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation said: “CIHT does not think the document clearly establishes the need for development of the national networks, particularly on the road network. The potential for modal shift from road to rail for passengers is written off in simplistic terms, taking no account of regional and local variations. It does not address demand management in any detail.”
Dorset County Council says: “The outcome [of the NPS] is likely to be increased pressure on local roads, whilst local highway authorities are effectively starved of the funds that will be needed to resolve the resultant urban congestion. We do not think it sensible to devise an NPS that does not include strategies for the 98% of the road network outside Highways Agency control.”
On the other hand, motoring groups have welcomed the NPS. The RAC Foundation says it can find “little to disagree with” in the draft NPS.
www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/new...