Raising the road stakes

Planning, 29 August 2008

In a period of rapidly rising construction prices, it is not surprising that the cost of building roads is increasing along with everything else. For transport lobby groups, the spiralling bills offer another weapon for their campaign armoury.

Last week, the Campaign for Better Transport (CFBT) highlighted massive increases in the cost of Highways Agency schemes since they entered the roads programme. The 44 projects for which costs are available were mostly approved between 2003 and 2005. Initially they were costed at £4.45 billion. Updated estimates show that the programme is now likely to cost between £6.86 billion and £8.12 billion.

The campaign notes that the agency uses the retail price index to calculate increases, whereas construction industry inflation is much higher. CFBT roads and climate campaigner Richard George feels that the agency includes an "optimism bias" in its cost estimates. He also points out that road costs increased hugely in the 1990s as a result of direct action campaigns.

"To some extent, it is true that costs always escalate. But that's not to say it's unavoidable. It certainly doesn't mean that we should excuse it and write a blank cheque," says George. He cites the A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton scheme, priced at £490 million on programme entry but now forecast to cost £1.2 billion. "Unless the agency has suddenly found a way of making a lot more people benefit from the road, there is no way that it can still be considered good value," he argues.

"While it may appear that building road capacity will save valuable time, it will lead to longer trips and induced traffic within a few years," claims Campaign to Protect Rural England senior transport campaigner Ralph Smyth. "As catchment areas increase, so businesses, shops and services are centralised and commuters move further away from their workplaces, which creates new bottlenecks elsewhere. If the road lobby were not trying to drive faster, then it might realise that its prescriptions are leading to society standing still, if not going backwards."

But Stephen Glaister, professor of transport and infrastructure at Imperial College London's centre for transport studies, says an escalation in costs above the initial figures is not necessarily a reason to stop road building. "The economic benefits are much higher than the costs if you choose the right schemes. That was laid out very clearly in the Eddington review," he maintains.

"When benefits are assessed as five, six or seven times the cost, you can factor in a doubling of costs and still have a good case for spending more money on road construction," he adds. He points to RAC Foundation studies looking at the situation as far ahead as 2041: "Growth in population, economic activity and car ownership will all generate more demand for road space."

George counters that the idea of the UK building its way out of congestion is nonsense. "The more road space we have, the more people will be using it. The only way that predicted traffic growth can happen is by building the roads for it to happen. London has no new roads and good public transport, so people stop driving. The only way that you are going to change people's habits is through serious and sustained investment in public transport."

Glaister disagrees. "People want to travel around to achieve things, not out of habit. It is part of the economy and quality of life. Government's role is to judge what the need is and decide adequate provision. The idea that public transport can take up this demand is completely unrealistic. Rail and buses each make up six per cent of passenger kilometres, so you cannot meet the growing need by improving public transport. It is not a bad thing to do, but it will not solve the problem. We need more roads."

Freight Transport Association director of external affairs Geoff Dossetter notes that road congestion is estimated to waste £20 billion a year. "The government takes more than £41 billion a year from road users and spending back on the system is tiny - £1 billion on the strategic network and £2.5 billion on local roads. For the world's fifth largest economy, that's not good enough."

Some critics contend that there should be more investment in moving freight around using rail and waterways. "The extra freight you can get on rail or waterways or coastal shipping works to the advantage of those operators that can do it because they take their goods out of highly expensive road congestion. But you have to recognise the limits of that sort of freight movement," Dossetter responds.

"The average truck journey is between 80km and 95km. It is not much good saying that rail is going to take care of this, because I don't know of any supermarket that is connected to a railhead or a canal quay. If a delivery is going to start on a lorry and end on a lorry, it is easier, cheaper and more convenient for the bit in between to be on a lorry."

George believes that the solution to this problem lies in fostering infrastructure improvements through the planning system. He wants to see pressure put on developers to implement their promises in section 106 agreements more rigorously. Leaving agreed cycle lanes and bus routes to be built last means that people are forced into car dependency, he warns: "It's a habit that is hard to break."