House of Commons - National Policy Statement on National Networks

National Policy Statement on National Networks - Transport Committee Contents

Is the policy right?

20. The draft NPS advocates the development of the national road and rail networks:

· to accommodate forecast demand growth

· to unlock regional economic growth and regeneration

· to deal with areas of high growth, housing developments, new employment opportunities and other significant infrastructure developments, which will place new demands on the networks

In relation to roads, the NPS states that better maintenance, modal shift (from road to rail, cycling or walking) and demand management will not be sufficient to meet growing demand so more infrastructure is needed. The Government would like to see more passenger and freight movements by rail and advocates expansion of the railway in various ways, as well as more electrification.[29]

21. The draft NPS also includes some guidance to scheme promoters on wider policy matters:

· Environmental and social impacts of schemes should be mitigated. Where possible, environmental benefits should be delivered.[30]

· Rail schemes should seek to improve safety (no similar point is made in relation to road schemes, although there is extensive discussion of how schemes could improve road safety in the assessment principles section of the NPS).[31]

· Road schemes should address the needs of cyclists and walkers and invest in infrastructure where roads sever communities.[32]

· Schemes should improve disabled access to transport.[33]

22. The biggest area for debate about these policies concerns whether it is right for the Government to seek to accommodate increasing demand for roads by building more infrastructure rather than seeking to manage demand, for example by introducing road pricing. For example, Andrew Shaw of the Planning Officers Society suggested that road pricing would be an "obvious solution" for managing congestion over the next 25 years.[34] The Campaign for Better Transport said "policies of demand management and mode shift are … the only rational response to high growth forecasts, being robust to both low and high traffic growth scenarios and the only way to reduce congestion below current levels, rather than simply make it less worse in future".[35]

23. We discuss these issues at more length in our Better Roads report.[36] Investment in the road network will require new funding streams. This is a challenge that must be addressed. However, a consensus would be required to introduce any road user charging scheme across the strategic road network as an alternative to road taxation, and the many issues involved would have to be resolved.

24. A number of witnesses commented on the impact on local networks of developments on the national road and rail networks. For example, Jeremy Evans from the Institution of Engineering and Technology said:[37]

You cannot just look at forecasting growth on the strategic network without looking at the impact on the local network. Most of those inter-urban journeys originate or terminate in an urban area, and the capacity of those local roads is not going to change significantly over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. As an example, if the M1 southbound was improved dramatically, it would still turn up at Staples Corner on the north circular road, so the risk is that that improvement to a road network would simply be a big car park. You have to look at improvements to the national strategic network alongside local roads as well.

The DfT's view is that, so far as road schemes are concerned, a mechanism to integrate the development of national and local networks is already in place.[38]

25. It is surprising that the draft NPS only discusses impacts on local transport networks in relation to proposals for strategic rail freight interchanges and in relation to the construction of road and rail projects.[39] These impacts-increased traffic, congestion, impacts on the reliability of the railway and safety implications-should be part of the assessment of all proposals to develop the strategic road and rail networks. We recommend that the NPS include specific provision for scheme promoters to assess and manage the impacts of developments to national networks on local networks.

26. The NPS does not apply to the High Speed 2 project because this will be authorised by an Act of Parliament rather than through the normal planning process. However, high speed rail is not absent from the document. The NPS concludes that "where major new rail alignments are required, high speed rail will be considered".[40] Jeremy Evans argued that the NPS should include reference to integrating high speed rail stations with other networks.[41] Paul Plummer, speaking for the Rail Delivery Group, emphasised the importance of integrating high speed lines with the classic rail network.[42]

27. We previously recommended that the Government, working with Network Rail, should identify opportunities to identify potential "High Speed Britain" projects by the end of 2014, for inclusion in the post-2020 Control Period 6 planning round, aimed at ensuring that the benefits of HS2 are felt across the country.[43] Work of this nature is now underway.[44] In this context, we recommend that the NPS make explicit reference to the desirability of connecting HS2 to the classic rail network, so that people from around the UK can benefit from the new high speed rail line.

28. Section three of the draft NPS specifically requires promoters of rail schemes to seek to improve the safety of the railway. However, no equivalent requirement is placed on promoters of road schemes at this point.[45] Later in the document, it is stated that promoters of road schemes should seek to improve safety.[46] We recommend that section three of the NPS should specifically require promoters of roads schemes to look to improve road safety, analogous to the requirement on rail scheme promoters in paragraph 3.10 of the draft.

29. There was also criticism of the draft NPS for assessing road and rail networks in isolation from one another. For example, the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation said:[47]

A national transport strategy would be most effective if developed around an overall spatial strategy that looks at the demand for the country's transport networks (including non-strategic/local interfaces) in an integrated sustainable manner. This would allow future needs of networks to be assessed holistically and in a way that balances investment across all networks, maximising the efficiency of both public and private investment.

30. We have examined this issue in more detail in our Better Roads report. Our conclusion was:

The DfT should commission integrated passenger and freight plans for strategic transport routes or regions, rather than looking at one mode of transport in isolation. Such integrated plans, which should be developed in consultation with local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and community and road user groups, must take into account how different options for the use of infrastructure and technology will impact on transport movements and on economic development. The DfT must then identify projects—including maintenance schemes—within the chosen plan for implementation within the five-year funding cycle. Every project should be subject to a post-implementation review to assess the effectiveness of the investment. We recommend that this process be set out in the forthcoming Roads Investment Strategy.

29 Draft NPS paragraphs 2.16-2.24 and 2.32-2.36. Back

30 Draft NPS paragraph 3.6. Back

31 Draft NPS paragraphs 3.8-3.10 and 4.55-4.68. Back

32 Draft NPS paragraph 3.14. Back

33 Draft NPS paragraph 3.17. Back

34 Qq 70-72. Back

35 NPS0033 section 2. Back

36 Transport Committee, Fifteenth Report, Session 2013-14, Better roads: improving England's strategic road network, HC 850. Back

37 Q54. Also see Transport Planning Society (NPS0020), Greengauge 21 (NPS0026) Friends of the Lake District (NPS0025) Transport for London (NPS0028) paragraphs 6.4-6.5 and the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (NPS0024). For a different view, see Q82. Back

38 NPS0017 paragraphs 5.7-5.8. Back

39 Draft NPS paragraph 5.184 and NPS0017 paragraphs 5.5 to 5.8. Back

40 Draft NPS paragraph 2.34. Back