6 Congestion and capacity
60. Throughout our inquiry, witnesses described congestion
on the major road network as the major problem on the roads. Councillor
Sparks, of the Local Government Association, told us that:
The reduction of congestion is a very, very high
priority in relation to local authorities, not just from a transport
point of view but because it is indicative of a lot of other problems
which need to be addressed because of climate change, economic
competitiveness, et cetera. It is a number one priority.[98]
Other witnesses pointed to the inconvenience to businesses
and individuals, the cost to the economy as well as the environmental
cost arising from road congestion as reasons for tackling it as
a high priority. The AA who, in conjunction with Populus, run
monthly surveys for their 45,000 members panel, found that "Congestion
and unreliable journeys are a significant concern for motorists
and business."[99]
The Minister broadly agreed, arguing that congestion:
is one of the key challenges over the coming period
and it is a view that we think is shared by the general public,
who will refer to congestion in surveys as a concern that they
have along with the concern about the reliability of journey times,
which is another thing they put very highly. We know that congestion
is the primary cause of significant delays [
] at a number
of pinch points in the strategic road network.[100]
61. Edmund King told us that congestion often happened
when two unrelated incidents on the road network happened at the
same time: "it could be a broken down truck in one of the
lanes and then an accident further aheadthat leads to gridlock".[101]
We also heard that on local authority roads, work on utilities
pipes could cause serious and sometimes unpredictable delays.
62. Several witnesses suggested that the main problem
with congestion was the uncertainty over journey times that it
caused. Professor Glaister told us that "for the public it
is not so much about speed, it is about reliability. So if you
can use speed [controls] to increase reliability, that is acceptable".[102]
The idea of regulating speed to reduce congestion is one that
several witnesses mentioned. It is currently used on sections
of the motorway network, notably some parts of the M42 where speed
limits in conjunction with hard-shoulder running have reduced
congestion. Reducing the overall speed limit reduces stop-start
traffic flow so that while the optimal total journey time may
be lower it is more predictable. However, Mick Laverty, Chief
Executive of Advantage West Midlands cautioned against focusing
solely on journey time reliability. In his view,
the number one issue [is] journey time reliability,
but I believe it is a bit like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If
you can get the reliability sorted, the next issue should be the
absolute length of the journey and whether that was acceptable.
So I think reliability is the number one issue, but if that was
sorted people would quickly move on to, "is the amount of
time on this journey acceptable?"[103]
MAINTENANCE WORK AND CONGESTION
63. As indicated in Chapter 4 above, maintenance
work often causes congestion. Whilst this is often unavoidable,
it is important that the authorities communicate carefully and
effectively to motorists what work is being done. It is particularly
frustrating for motorists when they experience delays without
seeing any sign of work being carried out, and have no idea why
they were delayed. Graham Dalton, Chief Executive of the Highways
Agency, told us that, as well as carrying out a large percentage
of maintenance work at night, the Highways Agency also tried to
manage maintenance to cause as little disruption as possible.
He said that work is often in progress even "where the public
do not see something happening. As a rule that is for a very good
reason."[104]
Maintenance work on bridges, for example, is rarely visible to
passers-by. We fully accept that maintenance work on the road
network is likely to cause delays and that the safety of staff
carrying out this work must be safeguarded. However, local authorities
and the Highways Agency must minimise disruption and road closures
as much as possible and they should consider ways to improve the
way they communicate with road users to explain disruptions caused
by maintenance.
Cost of congestion
64. Many of the witnesses we heard from focused on
the cost of congestion to the UK economy as a pressing reason
why it should be prioritised. Mick Laverty from Advantage West
Midlands, representing England's Regional Development Agencies,
ERDA, told us that:
...there is congestion on the network which is quite
a big drag on the economy. I have attempted to estimate how much
that is, something approaching 1.2% of GVA in 2005 as a result
of road congestion, and I think the projections are that that
congestion is going to get worse and that will have an increasing
impact on the competitiveness of this country.[105]
65. Jack Elliot of the British Chambers of Commerce
told us that, using the results of their Annual Transport Survey,
the BCC estimate for the cost of congestion was £23 billion
per year. The Eddington Transport Study came to a similar
conclusion with a figure of £22 billion.
66. However, Stephen Joseph, of the Campaign for
Better Transport, suggested to us that these high figures for
the cost of congestion originated from an estimate from the CBI
in the 1980's which had calculated 1-1.5% of GDP at the time and
suggested that this figure was the cost of congestion. Mr Joseph
went on to tell us that:
These figures are, I think, slightly artificial and
if you ask in surveys how important people think congestion is,
they say congestion is a problem for the country, not necessarily
in sums. Where it does impact is on reliability and predictability
and I think this does bear examination because the Department
for Transport's appraisal process gives priority to time savings,
sometimes very small time savings aggregated up and then discounted
over 60 years, whereas what matters to businesses, to National
Express and to the members of the British Chambers of Commerce
is reliability and predictability.[106]
67. The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Chris
Mole MP, suggested that there was no "direct answer"
to the question of how much congestion cost. He did, however,
refer us to "the £22 billion figure which splits 50/50
between the cost to business and the cost to individuals of lost
time anticipated from congestion that would grow as a result of
the projected forward traffic volumes".[107]
When asked about the reliability of this figure he told us that
"it is the best figure that anyone can give you at the minute".[108]
68. As our report Taxes and charges on road users
states, the Department for Transport estimates that "the
average marginal external cost of driving a car an additional
kilometre is 15.5p".[109]
13.1p of this is the cost of congestion. In the DfT's calculations,
the costs of congestion vary from 0p/km on quiet rural roads to
£1.95/km for the busiest urban roads. Taxes and charges
on road users also highlights work done by the Campaign for
Better Transport, using the DfT figures. They estimate that the
total cost of congestion is between
£70 billion-£95 billion per annum, with congestion being
the major component.
69. We are sympathetic to the Minister's point
that congestion is a complex issue. However, while some of our
witnesses may have questioned the exact figure for the cost of
congestion, it is clear that congestion does have a significant
cost to the UK economy. Given the scale of the cost, we support
effective investment in the road network to reduce congestion.
70. In order to make sensible decisions about future
spending to relieve congestion, the Government needs to understand
the extent of the problem in social, environmental and economic
terms. Much of the evidence we heard, referred to earlier, suggested
that the most pressing problem caused by congestion was the uncertainty
it introduced over journey times. Having to allow extra journey
times to take account of possible congestion is not an effective
use of time for individuals or businesses. The Government should
prioritise schemes which reduce the uncertainty over journey times
that congestion causes.
Forecasting traffic growth
71. Predicted traffic growth is another widely used
figure which was subject to challenge from some of our witnesses.
The Department for Transport's Transport Trends report predicts
traffic growth of 29% by 2015.[110]
This was supported by the Institution of Civil Engineers and Institution
of Highways and Transportation who said that "Forecasts for
levels of road traffic in England predicted 29% and 38% increases
for 2015 and 2025 respectively from the level in 2000."[111]
Professor Glaister of the RAC Foundation told us that the Department's
figures are:
soundly based, sensible and they take proper
account of what is known about demographic features, the location
of housing. [
] I have separately done some work on much
longer distances into the future forecasts, up to 2041, which
are entirely consistent with the Department's own shorter-term
forecast up to 2025, following the same kind of logic [
]
traffic will be something like 40% higher than it is today unless
there is some major policy change in between.[112]
72. However, we also heard evidence from Dr Metz
who suggested that traffic growth predictions were flawed because
they did not take into account what had been generating traffic
growth. He told us that, looking at car traffic rather than vans
or lorries:
on average the amount of time we all spend
travelling is about an hour a day and [this] has not changed in
35 years. On average we make about 1,000 journeys a year and,
again, that has not changed over this period. What has changed
is the distance that we travel. In the early 1970s on average
we travelled 4,500 miles a year and now we travel 7,100 miles
a year.[113]
While traffic growth has historically been linked
to population growth and people travelling greater distances rather
than people spending more time travelling, Dr Metz suggested that
the distances of car journeys had not increased over the last
five years. According to Dr Metz, the forecasts from the Department
for Transport are based on an assumption that "the long-running
historic trend in the relationship between economic growth and
traffic growth will continue into the future. [
] that is
not necessarily so." Therefore, he believes, the traditional
assumptions on which traffic growth forecasts are made need to
be re-examined.[114]
73. Although Edmund King of the AA accepted that
"some of the growth has slowed down" both he and Professor
Glaister of the RAC Foundation argued that the plateauing of distance
travelled by car would still be affected by factors such as population
growth and the increasing number of journeys by other types of
vehicle.[115] The Minister
told us that although there had been "a relative slowing
in the growth in car traffic compared with other vehicular modes"
the Department was still "anticipating that by 2025 [
]
we are looking at something like a 32% growth in traffic volumes".[116]
When asked about the type of vehicle that would make up this growth
Martin Jones, Head of Strategic Roads Division at the Department
for Transport, told us that "I do not think the forward modelling
makes too much of a distinction between different vehicle types,
it just gives overall traffic levels".[117]
The predominant view at present is that population growth and
the increasing number of vans and other non-car vehicles on the
road make it unlikely that traffic volume has reached, or is nearing,
a plateau at this stage. However, it is important that the Government's
forecasts do not simply map past growth patterns onto predictions
for the future. The growth in car traffic, for example, has slowed
considerably in the past decade and there has been a rapid rise
in mileage by vans.
74. It is clear from our evidence that the growth
in car traffic is being outstripped by the growth in other vehicle
traffic. Given that different road users will have different patterns
of use and requirements it would seem sensible to differentiate
between different groups of users in future models and forecasts
of traffic levels on the major road network. We are concerned
that the Department is unable to disaggregate traffic growth predictions
in order to establish how it expects roads to be used by different
population groups in the future. This information is of critical
importancewithout it, planning is, at best, guessworkand
we urge the Department to look at how to improve these forecasts.
To build or not to build
75. The evidence we received from road user groups
strongly advocates building more roads and increasing the capacity
of the existing road network. The RAC Foundation suggest that,
in order to meet demand from road users, an extra 600 lane kilometres
of road per year would have to be built between now and 2041.[118]
Some road user groups who submitted evidence to this inquiry questioned
the extent to which modal shift and Active Traffic Management
(ATM) could reduce congestion simply through reductions in traffic
volume and a more effective management of road capacity. Nonetheless,
they also recognised that road building should be just one of
a range of approaches taken to improve the major road network.
Mick Laverty of Advantage West Midlands supported this view. He
told us that road building is:
one of a number of things you might want to look
into. It is not exclusively the answer. There are things around
smarter ways of working, better use of technology in the vehicle
and the roadside, targeting hotspots, funding, and focusing on
public transport. I think it is one of the measures you might
want to consider, but it is not the only one you might want to
consider.[119]
76. Sustainable transport and environmental groups
were against road building. Ralph Smyth of the Campaign to Protect
Rural England argued that road building "would simply lead
to more traffic and more congestion".[120]
Dr Metz also suggested that "traffic has essentially expanded
to fill the network".[121]
Even Professor Glaister of the RAC Foundation accepted that "When
you put the new bit of road in you reduce the cost of getting
from A to B for the people who use the road, so more people do
it".[122] Professor
Glaister did, however, argue that this was mainly due to pre-existing
demand being met rather than additional demand being generated
by new roads.
77. John Elliot of TAG went even further than opposing
additional road building. He told us that:
I think in some areas we might have an excess of
infrastructure and this has encouraged too much road movement
and particularly car commuting movement on the strategic road
network, which cannot be matched in the urban areas. [
]
I am not saying that we do not need more access roads, but, for
instance, adding to the M25 I think is quite big public money
that would make matters no better at all within a very short space
of time.[123]
78. This phenomenon, of widening congested stretches
of road, was identified as futile by a number of witnesses. Mr
Elliot, along with some other witnesses, also suggested that increasing
capacity on the major road network caused worse conditions on
surrounding local roads resulting in poorer overall journey times.
Stephen Joseph, representing Campaign for Better Transport concurred,
explaining that the benefits of road building were sometimes overstated
because they did not take into account the effect on surrounding
roads. He suggested that even if a road such as the A1(M) was
widened to the point where there was no congestion on it, "the
amount of traffic that that would generate would completely congest
the entire local road network and [
] overall end-to-end
journey times would get worse if you did something like that".[124]
79. While this inquiry has focused on the major road
network we acknowledge that the major road network does not exist
in isolation. The Government and the relevant transport authorities
must consider the impact on surrounding local roads of any increased
capacity on the major road network, whether through construction,
widening or hard-shoulder running. We have to acknowledge that,
whilst we recognise in some instances such schemes could have
a beneficial effect by relieving the pressure on local
roads, there can be no assumption that a reserve of unexplored
capacity exists which can be used indefinitely. It is also important
to consider the sustainability problems with using road construction
as a significant part of easing congestion.
80. One issue that has been raised alongside discussions
of road building is road pricing. We have recently concluded a
major inquiry into taxes and charges on road users and do not
intend to retread arguments about road-pricing in general in this
report. However, in relation to the major road network, a number
of road user groups promoted road-pricing as part of a solution
to congestion in conjunction with some road building and widening.
Professor Stephen Glaister of the RAC Foundation told us that,
to tackle congestion, "is not just to find more capacity
[
] but to have a package which involves a new pricing regime
as well as a new capacity regime".[125]
The Road Users' Alliance, while more cautious about road-pricing,
agreed it could be part of the solution to congestion as long
as it was not "seen simply as a means of reducing demand
for road space but as a means of managing it by challenging the
value placed on particular journeys at particular times and optimising
the use of all available capacity".[126]
81. In our report on Taxes and charges on
road users we concluded that:
The Government's research into road pricing has been
underway for a long time, with apparently little to show for it
[
] The Government should clarify its position on road pricing
research: what has been learnt, what key steps remain to be identified,
and when it is likely to be in a position to make a decision on
implementation.[127]
This remains our position. We also note that some
road user groups, who have expressed concern about the possibility
of road pricing, accept that road pricing should be part of the
package accompanying any large-scale road building projects. Before
any national road-pricing scheme can be contemplated, it is essential
that the Government demonstrates clearly how existing taxes and
charges on road users will be replaced by such a scheme.[128]
82. The Government's position is to recognise "the
close relationship between capacity and demand":
a theoretical case could be made for building significantly
more new road capacity. We recognise that, in the longer term,
further expansion of the road network will be necessary in some
places, as Sir Rod Eddington said, but large-scale road-building
would be environmentally damaging, harmful to people's quality
of life and financially unaffordable.[129]
83. There are some areas, we heard evidence of
such from the North East of England, that are underprovided for
in terms of major roads. It is unacceptable that some parts of
the country are discriminated against in terms of transport investment.
USING THE EXISTING ROAD NETWORK
MORE EFFECTIVELY
84. Some witnesses proposed Active Traffic Management
(ATM) and other new technologies as possible alternatives to road
building. Kapsch TrafficCom UK suggested that "Advanced traffic
management, hard shoulder running and the 'managed motorway' can
all use existing space more efficiently at a lower cost than constructing
new roads".[130]
The Department for Transport has recently completed a trial of
ATM on the M42. As well as hard shoulder running at peak times,
variable speed limits were used to regulate traffic flows. In
Britain's Transport Infrastructure: Motorways and Major Trunk
Roads published in January 2009, the Department announced
that Active Traffic Management would be rolled out to further
sections of the M42 as well as sections of the M6 and M40.
85. Professor Stephen Glaister of the RAC Foundation
gave his qualified support for the use of Active Traffic Management,
arguing that the M42 trial had demonstrated the potential for
ATM to yield substantial improvements to traffic flow and reduced
rates of accidents. However, such positive outcomes depended on
very careful management and continuous resource commitments: "active
traffic management is going to require considerable money year
after year to make sure it is properly managed." Nonetheless,
both the RAC and the AA cautioned that ATM could only be part
of a solution and that additional measures would be necessary
to reduce congestion.
86. With the gradual rollout of Active Traffic Management,
the Department is beginning to use new and flexible methods to
improve the efficiency of the major road network. However, Professor
Bell suggested that traffic management technology has not so far
been utilised to its full potential. Ramp metering was an example
of a technology which held significant potential because it could
be used to control access and behaviour on motorways.[131]
The system could also help to collate information and disseminate
it to the public and thereby help to maximise the number of vehicles
on the road, and eventually to reduce traffic.[132]
Sharon Kindleysides from Kapsch TrafficCom, suggested that certain
technologies were under-utilised as a result of a lack of political
will and leadership.[133]
87. Support for Active Traffic Management was not,
however, universal. Jack Semple, of the Road Hauliers Association,
suggested that the M42 trials had been rushed and that, particularly
when it came to hard shoulder running through junctions, there
were "some concerns at the extent of commitment to that without
it apparently being tested."[134]
Edmund King of the AA also sounded a note of caution saying that
"I think the problem at the moment is that it [hard shoulder
running] is kind of seen as widening on the cheap and I think
that is a problem which will leave us with more problems in the
future".[135]
In its recent White Paper on High Speed Rail, the Government acknowledged
that "the scope for incremental improvements [i.e. hard shoulder
running] to continue to offer high value for money is finite,
with returns from such packages decreasing substantially as they
grow in size and cost".[136]
88. We welcome Active Traffic Management (ATM)
as an example of the Government employing innovative solutions
to congestion. ATM has the potential to reduce congestion on the
major road network, although it will not resolve the problem of
congestion on its own. However, we are concerned that the focus
of the current ATM roll out appears to be on hard shoulder running
as a substitute for motorway widening rather than as part of a
package of measures to regulate traffic flow. Hard shoulder running
must not be separated from the other elements of Active Traffic
Management, such as speed controls, needed to ensure it is a safe
and effective measure.
89. We are concerned that Active Traffic Management
techniques, for example speed limits to control traffic flow,
are poorly understood by the public and can lead to frustration.
This situation must change if it is to be an effective tool in
improving the flow of the major road network. The Government
must ensure the public is well informed about the benefits of
Active Traffic Management techniques, such as hard shoulder running
and flexible speed restrictions, and how it works. This is the
only way road users are likely to accept such new arrangements,
and indeed help to make it as effective as possible.
Freight
90. One option we looked at was the possibility of
encouraging modal shift in the freight industry, from road to
rail and water. As illustrated in Figure 3 below, approximately
67% of 'freight miles' in the UK are carried by road, whilst rail
accounts for just 9%.[137]
Alternatives to road freight, such as short sea shipping and rail
freighting have been suggested as an option for reducing congestion
on the major road network. As we stated in our report, Freight
Transport "Freight and logistics [
] play an important
part in meeting all four of the Department for Transport's strategic
objectives".[138]
Figure 3: Mode share (%) of domestic freight
activity, goods moved (billion tonne km), 2008
Source: DfT, Transport Statiistics Great Britain,
2009, Table 4.1
91. The Department for Transport offers grants to
help with the capital and operating costs of using rail freight
or short-sea shipping to transport goods. However, even Alan Stilwell
of the Institution of Civil Engineers and Institution of Highways
and Transportation, organisations which support efforts to encourage
more rail freight and short sea shipping acknowledges that "There
are limited opportunities, partly because of the capacity on the
rail [
] but also because rail lines do not always go exactly
where you would like them to go."[139]
92. We also heard that the cost of rail freight made
it unlikely that there would be a significant shift towards rail
freight. In 2003, the Royal Mail saved £90million by replacing
rail freight with road freight.[140]
The Strategic Freight Network (SFN) which we discussed in our
recent report, Priorities for investment on the railways,
is an excellent initiative, and with funding of £200 million,
the Government has made a good start. It is vital that the momentum
is maintained, and that the Government co-ordinates environmental
and transport policies so as to encourage modal shift. While
we welcome the Government's commitment to promote and support
rail and water-borne freight, it is unlikely that this will provide
a solution to road congestion. Tangible steps, such as the development
of the Strategic Freight Network, are required to encourage modal
shift for freight. This in turn will help to reduce congestion
and pollution on the major road network. This is beneficial for
road users, the environment and the national economy alike.
98 Q 61 Back
99
Ev 132 Back
100
Q 346 Back
101
Q 93 Back
102
Q 138 Back
103
Q 174 Back
104
Q 54 Back
105
Q 148; GVAGross Value Addedis defined by the Office for National
Statistics as "the contribution to the economy of each individual
producer, industry or sector in the United Kingdom" Back
106
Q 235 Back
107
Qq 342-343 Back
108
Q 344 Back
109
Transport Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2008-09, Taxes
and charges on road users, HC 103, Para 46 Back
110
Department for Transport, Transport Trends: 2007 Edition, 2007 Back
111
Ev 89 Back
112
Q 100 Back
113
Q 31 Back
114
Q 31 Back
115
Qq 141-142 Back
116
Qq 314-315 Back
117
Q 316 Back
118
Q 120; this is equivalent to 373 lane miles. Back
119
Q 151 Back
120
Q 239 Back
121
Q 39 Back
122
Q 119 Back
123
Q 189 Back
124
Q 223 Back
125
Q 114 Back
126
Ev 179 Back
127
Transport Committee, Taxes and charges on road users, Para
116 Back
128
Transport Committee, Taxes and charges on road users, Para
116 Back
129
Ev 94 Back
130
Ev 66 Back
131
Ramp metering is a system designed to reduce delays and congestion
at junctions. Sensors in the road monitor the congestion and,
during busy periods, signals prevent more than a few vehicles
being released onto the road. Information from the sensors is
used to adjust the timing of the signals. Back
132
Q 203 Back
133
Q 207 Back
134
Q 179 Back
135
Q 112 Back
136
Department for Transport, High Speed Rail, Cm 7827, March
2010, para 2.47 Back
137
Department for Transport, Delivering A Sustainable Transport
System: The Logistics Perspective, December 2008, Figure 1.4 Back
138
Transport Committee, Eighth Report of session 2007-08, Freight
Transport, HC 249, para 1 Back
139
Q 26 Back
140
Transport Committee, Eighth Report of session 2007-08, Freight
Transport, HC 249, para 55 Back
|