The major road network - Transport Committee Contents


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 concern—especially 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 allocation—on 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-trunking—the transfer of trunk roads from Highways Agency to local authority control—was 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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 30 March 2010