4 The current road network
Coverage and capacity
24. The majority of our witnesses suggested that,
overall, the geographical coverage of the major road networkthe
roads connecting regions, towns and citiesis adequate. A few expressed
concerns that certain areas of the country were not well served
by the existing major road network. Mick Laverty of Advantage
West Midlands suggested that the north-south bias of much of the
current road network posed unhelpful restrictions. He argued that
east-west connections such as Hull to Liverpool could help reduce
congestion on the major road network as a whole as well as benefitting
the areas linked.[41]
Professor Bell, Science City Professor of Transport and the Environment,
Newcastle University, also suggested that the east-west road network
needed improving. She told us that "There are areas, certainly
an east-west cross route north of the M62 and in the north towards
Scotland, where there needs to be considerable investment".[42]
25. A small minority of our witnesses argued that
a much more extensive major roads network was required. The Association
of British Drivers claimed that "the UK's motorway network
is one-third the EU average in relation to the size of its economy"
and that it was in desperate need of expansion.[43]
This country has one of the lowest motorway densities in Western
Europe. This puts England at an economic and competitive disadvantage.
The remedy for this should include some new initiatives to construct
and upgrade motorways.
26. The 2006 Eddington Transport Study concluded
that the connectivity of the current road network in the
UK is broadly right.[44]
Professor Glaister of the RAC Foundation endorsed this conclusion,
arguing that: "Plainly, things are connected to each other.
The difficulty [Eddington] identified is that in some places there
is not enough capacity. There is a road, but you cannot use it
reliably".[45] The
focus should be on optimising the capacity and efficiency of roads
that already exist, although a strategy which focuses exclusively
on the maximisation of capacity on existing roads, for example
through the use of hard-shoulder running, could be storing up
problems for the future on some very busy sections of the network.[46]
The Secretary of State has effectively rejected the main reasoning
and arguments in the Eddington report by agreeing to High Speed
Two. We recognise that the major problems facing the road network
relate to capacity and coverage.
THE STANDARD OF MAJOR ROADS
27. There was some concern that the existing major
road network is not always of a sufficient standard to
cater adequately for the needs of road users. Edmund King of the
AA, pointed to East Anglia, the A1 north of Newcastle and parts
of the South West that lack dual carriageways.[47]
Apart from the 1,845 miles of motorway, about 60% of the roads
managed by the Highways Agency (motorways and trunk roads) in
England are dual carriageway.[48]
The Highways Agency explained that roads managed by themstrategic
roadswere normally required to be at least dual carriageway to
allow overtaking and ensure safe traffic flow at higher speeds.[49]
As illustrated in Table 1 above, 14,905 miles of the principal
road network in England, i.e. major roads that are managed by
local authorities rather than the Highways Agency, are single
carriageway, whilst 2,477 miles are dual carriageway.[50]
While we accept that for some stretches of road, dual-carriageways
will not be feasible, this type of road offers benefits for both
road safety and journey times. While not every A-road needs to
be dual-carriage, the Highways Agency has acknowledged that dual-carriageways
should be the minimum standard for the strategic road network
that it manages. Over 900 miles of trunk roads are currently single
carriageways. Wherever possible the Highways Agency should ensure
that these roads are upgraded to dual-carriageways.
Management and maintenance
28. In 2000, the Government set itself a target to
eliminate the road maintenance backlog by 2010.[51]
Given the importance of the major road network to businesses and
individuals alike, it is vital that it is maintained effectively.
The Highways Agency is responsible for maintenance on motorways
and trunk roads while responsibility for the rest of the road
network falls to local highway authorities. Commenting on the
way funds for maintenance of the major roads network are prioritised,
the Department for Transport told us that the aim is to minimise:
the whole life cost of the infrastructure to achieve
a balance between the cost of construction and maintenance and
the benefits delivered by the road. This whole life cost calculation
will vary for different roads depending on the type of road and
the composition of the traffic using it. Maintaining the whole
network in an "as new" condition does not represent
optimal efficiency.[52]
This policy is reflected in the Highways Agency Business
Plan 2009-2010 which states that the Agency aims "to maintain
the network in a safe and serviceable condition in line with the
principle of minimising whole life costs".[53]
29. Most witnesses were satisfied with the standard
of maintenance on Highways Agency roads. The AA told us that "the
motorways and many trunk roads are well maintained by the Highways
Agency".[54] However,
there were concerns from a number of witnesses about the maintenance
of major roads managed by local authorities. The AA claimed that
"maintenance sometimes seems to be regarded a secondary concernespecially
at local authority [A-road] level".[55]
The Highways Agency and local authorities set maintenance standards
for their roads based on factors such as traffic speed, traffic
flow and HGV volume. As a result, standards are highest for motorways,
which is appropriate.
30. It was suggested by a number of witnesses that
funding constraints were leading to inadequate maintenance on
local authority maintained roads. Alan Stilwell, of the Institution
of Civil Engineers and Institution of Highways and Transportation,
highlighted that problems were being stored up because maintenance
tended to be reactive rather than proactive. He told us that this
is, in part, a by-product of the funding mechanism. With reference
specifically to principal roads, managed by local authorities,
he told us that:
over many years, investment levels have been
too low. Although that has been partially addressed, there is
still an estimate that the shortfall is something like £7.5 million
per local authority in terms of investment. [
] there should
be a ring-fenced additional allocation to local authorities to
address that backlog to deal proactively with the maintenance
issues which remain on the local network and eliminate, as far
as it is possible to do so, this unbalanced emphasis on reactive
maintenance which is creating some quite serious problems.
Councillor Sparks of the Local Government Association
agreed that there was a maintenance backlog. He told us that there
was "an incredible backlog of repairs which need to be made.
The estimate is £8.6 billion backlog".[56]
Brian Smith of Cambridgeshire County Council argued that financial
constraints in local authorities were to blame. Given the shortage
of funding, very difficult decisions had to be made, and some
work was left undone.[57]
The problem is compounded by the fact that some local authorities
are spending substantially less on maintenance of roads and bridges
than their indicative allocationon average about 50%.[58]
31. Chris Mole MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary
of State, Department for Transport, told us that he had not seen
any evidence that the maintenance of local authority controlled
parts of the major road network was a "particular problem".[59]
However, Martin Jones, Head of Strategic Roads Division at the
Department for Transport acknowledged that "the Department
has been monitoring the condition of the local authority road
network. Over past years there has been a declining level of condition
of the road network but that appears now to have been reversed".[60]
Mr Jones also told us that the Department had provided funding
for local authorities to monitor the condition of their roads.
The Department notes that the funding for local authority road
maintenance in England outside London has increased by 160% between
1997/98 and 2007/08.[61]
The funding is provided to local authorities in two parts: an
allocation for road and bridge maintenance within the Local Transport
Capital Settlement and an element within the authority's revenue
support grant (RSG). These grants are not ring fenced and local
authorities can set their own spending priorities.
32. A particular problem raised during the inquiry
was the prevalence of emergency, or reactive, maintenance work
being undertaken. Properly planned, proactive maintenance is not
only more cost effective but also allows better management of
disruptions to the road network. The Institution of Civil Engineers
and the Institution of Highways and Transportation told us that:
Reactive maintenance is extremely inefficient yet
levels are rising. The ideal proportion of annual budgets dedicated
to reactive maintenance is 16% in England, 14% in London and 20%
in Wales. However, the average spend in 2007 were 26%, 32% and
23% respectively. [
] reactive work costs as much as 10 times
more than a planned maintenance programme. Reactive work rarely
tackles the underlying cause of damage, will likely need to be
repeated regularly and fails to prolong the life to the road.
Planned preventative programming provides a far better value for
money and is much more efficient.[62]
33. We are concerned about the maintenance backlog
and problems on the local authority maintained part of the road
network. We are also concerned that not all Best Value indicators
feature in the new National Indicator set[63]
and this has led to some road condition surveys being abandoned.
We urge the Department to ensure that local authority road condition
reports and National Road Maintenance Condition Surveys are closely
monitored to ensure that they provide a reliable picture of the
condition of all major roads. Although we support budgetary flexibility
for local authorities, the Government must ensure that the condition
and safety of the major road network is not compromised. Given
a real terms increase in funding, it should be possible to maintain
the major road network adequately in most areas. Local authorities
need to be more transparent about the funding being made available
for roads maintenance, and the way in which it is used. The Government
and local authorities need to work together to ensure that the
proportion of emergency maintenance on the major road network
is reduced. If funds do not suffice for the maintenance and repairs
required in a particular area, councils need to be open and transparent
about it, and they need to take responsibility for rectifying
the problem in collaboration with the Government.
34. Maintenance work can cause congestion. This cannot
be entirely avoided, but comprehensive and up-to-date communication
with motorists to explain what work is being done is essential.
We discuss this issue on on page 23 below.
DE-TRUNKING
35. De-trunkingthe transfer of trunk roads
from Highways Agency to local authority controlwas intended
to allow local authorities to integrate roads important to the
local area into their own transport plans in a way the Highways
Agency could not, due to their narrower role of managing the national
network. When deciding which roads would be de-trunked the following
criteria were used to assess which roads were of national importance.
One or more of the criteria had to be met in order for roads to
be considered nationally important:
a) a road links main centres of population and
economic activity;
b) it provides access to major ports, airports
and rail intermodal terminals;
c) it joins peripheral regions to the centre;
d) it provides key cross-border links to Scotland
and Wales, and
e) it is classified as part of the UK Trans-European
Road Network.
36. Our witnesses were divided on the merits of de-trunking,
not only in terms of road maintenance but also in terms of management
and policy more generally. Both the Highways Agency and local
authority representatives expressed satisfaction with the current
split of trunk and non-trunk roads. Councillor Sparks of the Local
Government Association went further and suggested that "there
should be more de-trunking where appropriate", bringing a
greater share of the major road network under local government
control.[64]
37. The Minister supported the current allocation
of responsibilities for roads. He noted that the de-trunking process
had been completed in March this year, with the transfer of some
1,850 miles of roads along with significant resources to local
authorities. He concluded that the balance was now right: "those
roads which have been de-trunked are ones which essentially are
of regional and local importance in terms of the traffic that
is on them".
38. However, this view from local and central government
was not shared by all our witnesses. The Institution of Civil
Engineers and the Institution of Highways and Transportation suggested
that the management and operational structures controlling the
major road network were fragmented.[65]
Road user groups in particular suggested that some re-trunking
should be considered. Edmund King of the AA believed that the
reduction in the proportion of roads managed by the Highways Agency
was problematic because "the strategic road network should
serve all towns, villages, ports, airports in the country".
A network serving all towns and villages is clearly beyond what
is currently considered to be a strategic network and we cannot
agree that any sensible definition of 'strategic' would include
links to every town and village. Edmund King suggested that because
there are no other demands on Highways Agency budgets, the quality
of roads maintained by the Agency was greater.[66]
However, it is also self-evident that higher maintenance standards
for such roads are simply necessary. It would be both inefficient,
and inappropriate use of funds for all major roads in the country
to be maintained to the same standard as motorways.
39. Evidence from the Mersey Gateway Project, a project
to build a new toll bridge over the Mersey between Runcorn and
Widnes supported the view that local needs could sometimes be
better served by having major roads under local authority control.
They told us that although their local relationships with the
Highways Agency were generally good there could be tensions. In
the early stages of the project, the local need for new road infrastructure
had come into conflict with the Highways Agency's desire not to
have traffic redistributed onto their network.[67]
40. Evidence from Mick Laverty of Advantage West
Midlands supported this point, explaining that the Highways Agency
was a good partner, but that there was an inherent conflict in
its role. Whilst it aims to create and manage an effective national
network, it also has to try:
to ensure that what they do joins into regional plans,
regional employment opportunities and tries to address regional
issues. So I think they try, as best they can, with the funding
they have to balance those two things very well, but they are
two very different objectives potentially and [
] when push
comes to shove their oversight of the national network is the
most important thing they do.[68]
41. While de-trunking is supported by both the Highways
Agency and local authorities, some tension between the needs of
the national network and the needs of local communities remains.
Tensions between national and local needs and priorities are
inevitable. On the whole, the process of de-trunking has reduced
the frequency and intensity of such tensions because ex-trunk
roads have been integrated into local planning processes. We commend
the efforts of the Highways Agency and local authorities to minimise
conflicts of interests and ensure that they have productive working
relationships. However, where a de-trunked road continues to meet
the criteria for trunked roads and local conditions imply
remedies outside the local resources available, the Department
should consider the merits of re-trunking or providing additional
resources to the local authorities responsible for managing and
maintaining the road.
Strategic oversight
42. Apart from proposals that some de-trunking should
be reversed, we heard suggestions that the role of the Highways
Agency should be expanded in other ways. Professor Glaister of
the RAC Foundation questioned whether the portfolio of the Highways
Agency was adequate "if we all believe there is such a thing
as a strategic road with a national interest".[69]
He suggested that a new body was needed with "the ability
to make charges and use the charges to invest in the system",
based on the model of Network Rail. In his view, such a body would
be able to take strategic decisions that were currently not being
made.[70] He suggested
that a body, set up specifically to manage and invest in the road
network, may find it easier to win acceptance for policies such
as road pricing because the link between charges and the maintenance
of the road network would be clearer to road users.
43. Responsibility for the strategic development
and oversight of the major road network is shared between the
Highways Agency and the Department for Transport. The Minister,
Chris Mole MP, described the distribution of labour thus:
the [Highways] Agency would have the expertise to
know what can be done and where it can be done, but the Department
would take the responsibility for looking at the national infrastructure
as a whole and ensuring that where there were areas that needed
reinforcing we were ensuring that that could happen.[71]
44. While we accept the Minister's view that the
strategic development of the major road network should remain
a responsibility shared between the Department and the Highways
Agency, we are concerned about the common perception that the
Department is failing to lead from the front. The Department
for Transport must provide clear and timely leadership in terms
of the strategic development of the road network.
41 Q 170 Back
42
Q 188 Back
43
Ev 61 Back
44
HM Treasury and Department for Transport, The Eddington Transport
Study: Volume 2: Defining the challenge: identifying strategic
economic priorities for the UK transport system, December
2006 Back
45
Q 94 Back
46
Qq 111 and 112 Back
47
Q 94 Back
48
1,626 miles of non-motorway trunk roads are dual carriageway,
as against 1,033 miles of single carriageway; See Department for
Transport, TSGB 2009: Road lengths-data tables, http://www.dft.gov.uk
Back
49
Q 16 Back
50
All mileage figures are converted from kilometres using the rate
of 0.621371192 miles per kilometre. Back
51
Department for Transport Transport 2010, 2000 Back
52
Ev 94 Back
53
Highways Agency, Business Plan 2009-2010, p 22 Back
54
Ev 132 Back
55
ibid Back
56
Q 60 Back
57
Q 66 Back
58
Transport Committee, The impact of flooding on bridges and
other infrastructure in Cumbria, Oral and written evidence,
HC 473, Q33 Back
59
Q 308 Back
60
ibid Back
61
Ev 94 Back
62
Ev 89 Back
63
From 1 April 2008, 198 National Indicators (the National Indicator
Set) replaced Best Value Performance Indicators and the Performance
assessment Framework as the measures against which the performance
of local government is judged. Back
64
Q 88 Back
65
Ev 89 Back
66
Q 97 Back
67
Q 65 Back
68
Q 154 Back
69
Q 95 Back
70
Q 135 Back
71
Q 340 Back
|