The major road network - Transport Committee Contents


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 ahead—that 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 importance—without it, planning is, at best, guesswork—and 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


 
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