Budget: Osborne "squandering squillions on road schemes," says CTC

HarrogateSpa wrote:

An early commenter wrote that road improvements have 'absolutely zero negative consequences for cyclists', but this is completely missing the point. Road expansion creates more traffic, and more traffic has extreme negative consequences for people, on bikes or not.

Thank you. A clear statement of the problem. There are massive externalities for increased private car use. It's just an inefficient, non-engineered solution to the problem of a huge tranche of transport needs. It's also so heavily propagandized that most car users find it difficult to detangle the dream from the reality and the effect that it has on us all.

Ush wrote:

HarrogateSpa wrote:

An early commenter wrote that road improvements have 'absolutely zero negative consequences for cyclists', but this is completely missing the point. Road expansion creates more traffic, and more traffic has extreme negative consequences for people, on bikes or not.

Thank you. A clear statement of the problem. There are massive externalities for increased private car use. It's just an inefficient, non-engineered solution to the problem of a huge tranche of transport needs. It's also so heavily propagandized that most car users find it difficult to detangle the dream from the reality and the effect that it has on us all.

The massive externalities of car/truck use are however massively out weighed by the positive economic contribution that they make to the economy. As it currently stands we are willing to pay taxes on their use which easily exceed the cost of those externalitites. (e.g. we pay more fuel duty than even the most zealous economist would price CO2 at)

For the last 20 years we let our road infrastructure crumble with the mantra that cars are evil and we should be using trains and to a lesser extent bikes.

To vastly over simplify, we haven't invested enough on our trunk roads, this is having a drag on our economy. At the same time we are becoming more urbanised, those roads in cities need reduced traffic flows and better provision for cycling. The CTC should be supporting road schemes that take traffic off these roads.

And we should all unite against the blood stupid idea that is trams.....

Nuclear Dan wrote:

The massive externalities of car/truck use are however massively out weighed by the positive economic contribution that they make to the economy. As it currently stands we are willing to pay taxes on their use which easily exceed the cost of those externalitites. (e.g. we pay more fuel duty than even the most zealous economist would price CO2 at)

Citations needed please. Especially for the first. The latter sounds like weird weasel wording "we are willing to...".

Nuclear Dan wrote:

Ush wrote:

HarrogateSpa wrote:

An early commenter wrote that road improvements have 'absolutely zero negative consequences for cyclists', but this is completely missing the point. Road expansion creates more traffic, and more traffic has extreme negative consequences for people, on bikes or not.

Thank you. A clear statement of the problem. There are massive externalities for increased private car use. It's just an inefficient, non-engineered solution to the problem of a huge tranche of transport needs. It's also so heavily propagandized that most car users find it difficult to detangle the dream from the reality and the effect that it has on us all.

The massive externalities of car/truck use are however massively out weighed by the positive economic contribution that they make to the economy. As it currently stands we are willing to pay taxes on their use which easily exceed the cost of those externalitites. (e.g. we pay more fuel duty than even the most zealous economist would price CO2 at) For the last 20 years we let our road infrastructure crumble with the mantra that cars are evil and we should be using trains and to a lesser extent bikes. To vastly over simplify, we haven't invested enough on our trunk roads, this is having a drag on our economy. At the same time we are becoming more urbanised, those roads in cities need reduced traffic flows and better provision for cycling. The CTC should be supporting road schemes that take traffic off these roads. And we should all unite against the blood stupid idea that is trams.....

TU Dresden report from 2012 suggests around £50 bn external costs of cars in the UK, at least £10bn more than taxation yield. They don't  necessarily include all the costs - yes, I know that's not ever done really - but it does make this probably a conservative estimate of society's losses.

WolfieSmith wrote:

If you time-travelled someone from the 1930's to now and presented the mess we have made of the nation's public transport and it's fitness they would weep.  

My nan does!

WolfieSmith wrote:

If you time-travelled someone from the 1930's to now and presented the mess we have made of the nation's public transport and it's fitness they would weep.  

I imagine someone from the 1930s would be disappointed that we still use public transport. They'd probably have aspired to owning a car.

Nixster wrote:

I think the point is that it is possible to do all three, the argument should be about the relative priority and proportions of the spend.  Afterall, you can build an awful lot of segregated cycle route for the cost of a kilometer of motorway and even more for the cost of a kilometer of railway.  To not spend a small but significant proportion of the transport budget on city centre cycle infrastructure seems to me both against common sense and the stated intention of this and previous governements.

But, the transport budget does not pay for roads in England, it pays for the "strategic road network", which is Motorways and trunk A roads and others have observed the difference is the distance that is involved.

If I am communiting within a city, I will go by bike. If I am travelling from London to Cambridge, I will not be cycling. Heck, owing to the cost of public transport let's be honest I am going to drive up the M11 as it is cheaper.

The question is, why are local councils not spending more on cycling infrastructure? Their budgets are mostly not ring fenced, most cities have serious problems with the morning and evening peaks bringing standstill the road network, at which point everything on the road suffers.  But they don't do it.

We've seen how these local governments have squandered the cycling city cash what makes people think that other handouts by the government won't be wasted or used to create parking spaces...

Nixster wrote:

However, anyone who thinks you can stop investing in roads, spend the money on rail and cycling and still have an economy left is frankly deluding themselves.  Rail carries about 1/6th of the journeys of road and still less of the freight, there is no realistic prospect of rail replacing road as the principal mode of transport in this or any other developed economy.

You make interesting points about benefit magnitude versus costs.

And you may be right that there is no realistic prospect of rail replacing road as the principal mode of transport.

But if your argument to support that last point is simply that currently rail carries 1/6 of the journeys compared to road, then that's unconvincing. It's like saying "I don't have a sandwich now, so we can't have sandwiches".

Also, it's a mistake to lump freight and passenger rail together. Large scale, moderate speed, electric rail over urban areas is ridiculously energy efficient compared to automobile use. Individual car use in such scenarios seems less and less like a cost any society can bear, both in terms of pollution, noise and greenhouse gases and before you even factor in subjective costs.

Ush wrote:

Nixster wrote:

However, anyone who thinks you can stop investing in roads, spend the money on rail and cycling and still have an economy left is frankly deluding themselves.  Rail carries about 1/6th of the journeys of road and still less of the freight, there is no realistic prospect of rail replacing road as the principal mode of transport in this or any other developed economy.

You make interesting points about benefit magnitude versus costs. And you may be right that there is no realistic prospect of rail replacing road as the principal mode of transport. But if your argument to support that last point is simply that currently rail carries 1/6 of the journeys compared to road, then that's unconvincing. It's like saying "I don't have a sandwich now, so we can't have sandwiches". Also, it's a mistake to lump freight and passenger rail together. Large scale, moderate speed, electric rail over urban areas is ridiculously energy efficient compared to automobile use. Individual car use in such scenarios seems less and less like a cost any society can bear, both in terms of pollution, noise and greenhouse gases and before you even factor in subjective costs.

Electrified urban rail may be energy efficient - but it just isn't practical for most journeys. For commuting into London and a few other city centres, yes, but in most other places, and for most other purposes, it's simply not an option. 

It should be part of the mix, and indeed a larger part - but even doubling or tripling it, it would still be a small player outside London (e.g. 4% of Greater Manchester commuting residents got to work by rail and train in 2011). Cleaner, safer, more appealing road transport - including cars, buses, bikes and Shank's pony - will be far more important.

Duncann wrote:

Electrified urban rail may be energy efficient - but it just isn't practical for most journeys.

SNIP

(e.g. 4% of Greater Manchester commuting residents got to work by rail and train in 2011).

 

Again, this is a variant of the sandwich fallacy. Current diversion of funding to expand the road network leads to reduced opportunities to take light, electric rail, which in turn is cited in arguments such as these as a proof.

Ush wrote:

Duncann wrote:

Electrified urban rail may be energy efficient - but it just isn't practical for most journeys. SNIP (e.g. 4% of Greater Manchester commuting residents got to work by rail and train in 2011).

 

Again, this is a variant of the sandwich fallacy. Current diversion of funding to expand the road network leads to reduced opportunities to take light, electric rail, which in turn is cited in arguments such as these as a proof.

It's nothing to do with road funding. It's simply that rail cannot hope to ever have the network coverage and connectivity that road has. Even if you diverted all road funding and doubled it.

Duncann wrote:

It's nothing to do with road funding.

So, out of the limited pot of money available for developing public infrastructure, if we spend it all on roads then there will magically be more money available for other infrastructure?

Duncann wrote:

It's simply that rail cannot hope to ever have the network coverage and connectivity that road has. Even if you diverted all road funding and doubled it.

Rail doesn't need to have the same network coverage and connectivity. It needs _more_ of both to be sure, but all that's needed is that it within easy bicycling and walking distances of more people. That will require maintaining quieter, lower speed roads. As the main damagers of roads (heavy goods trucks) are displaced by goods rail networks the maintenance of pothole-free surfaces will become easier.

All of that will require a lot of money: money which is currently going into maintaining a system which has evolved into an expensive, unsatisfactory, GHG emitting, and most importantly cyclist-hostile one.

Ush wrote:

Duncann wrote:

It's nothing to do with road funding.

So, out of the limited pot of money available for developing public infrastructure, if we spend it all on roads then there will magically be more money available for other infrastructure?

It isn't to do with road funding! The only roads which are directly funded are those motorways and A roads run by the Highways Agency and they have dedicated a pot of cash to build cycling infra, even though they are an inter-urban network.

The local roads are funded by your local government budget. It is your local government that chooses not to spend it's budget on cycling infra. It is they who should have the best interests of the local economy (which is to keep traffic flowing) but again and again they do not. Or they play for easy victories which are short-sighted like the removal of bus-lanes in Liverpool.

If this is a health issue why is money not diverted from NHS or Public Health?

If it is for the local economy, why isn't the local council funding it?

I would love to see more frieght moving on the rails I really would but at the moment the cost is prohibitive and even then you still have to move the items from the rail terminal to a local distribution point and as these HGV vehicles become cleaner and more efficient the less attractive moving goods by rail is. Heck, we have a massive canal network, most of the major cities are connected so why don't goods be moved on that?

Wolfshade wrote:

Ush wrote:

Duncann wrote:

It's nothing to do with road funding.

So, out of the limited pot of money available for developing public infrastructure, if we spend it all on roads then there will magically be more money available for other infrastructure?

...

If this is a health issue why is money not diverted from NHS or Public Health?

...

Ahem... government funding and budgets don't always make the most sense...

I wonder how much transport funding would be freed up if we stopped pretending HS2 was going to happen.

Wolfshade wrote:

Ush wrote:

Duncann wrote:

It's nothing to do with road funding.

So, out of the limited pot of money available for developing public infrastructure, if we spend it all on roads then there will magically be more money available for other infrastructure?

It isn't to do with road funding! The only roads which are directly funded are those motorways and A roads run by the Highways Agency and they have dedicated a pot of cash to build cycling infra, even though they are an inter-urban network.

The local roads are funded by your local government budget. It is your local government that chooses not to spend it's budget on cycling infra. It is they who should have the best interests of the local economy (which is to keep traffic flowing) but again and again they do not. Or they play for easy victories which are short-sighted like the removal of bus-lanes in Liverpool.

If this is a health issue why is money not diverted from NHS or Public Health?

If it is for the local economy, why isn't the local council funding it?

I would love to see more frieght moving on the rails I really would but at the moment the cost is prohibitive and even then you still have to move the items from the rail terminal to a local distribution point and as these HGV vehicles become cleaner and more efficient the less attractive moving goods by rail is. Heck, we have a massive canal network, most of the major cities are connected so why don't goods be moved on that?

 

You're absolutely right that only the SRN is directly funded.  Local roads are funded by local authority spend, which (in large but declining proportion) comes from central government.  Indeed, the LA funding for local roads from central governement is determined on the basis of a formula set by central government.  That money then goes into a pot to fight it out with things like adult social care, libraries and schools.  As the amount of central government grant has declined over time, local authorities have for some reason prioritised not turfing grannies out of care homes above fixing potholes or building cycleways.

Central governement does from time to time fund 'pots' of money for specific issues, which they have done for cycling in the past, for LAs to bid for.  So while its true that local government, guided by their locally elected representative councillors, does make some interesting decisions regarding spending priorities, it is not true to suggest that central government is not able to directly fund cycling infrastructure improvements in towns and cities.

Nixster wrote:

You're absolutely right that only the SRN is directly funded.  Local roads are funded by local authority spend, which (in large but declining proportion) comes from central government.  Indeed, the LA funding for local roads from central governement is determined on the basis of a formula set by central government.  That money then goes into a pot to fight it out with things like adult social care, libraries and schools.  As the amount of central government grant has declined over time, local authorities have for some reason prioritised not turfing grannies out of care homes above fixing potholes or building cycleways.

Libraries? Probably not for much longer (they're closing left, right, and centre, or being kept open by volunteering elderly folks).   Schools? Ditto (academies).   Basically, give it 5-10 years and the only thing central government will let local authorities fund is adult social care.  Everything else will be run by corporates and funded/controlled directly by central government.   Although I'm sure central government will still let local authorities take the blame for anything going wrong...

brooksby wrote:

Nixster wrote:

You're absolutely right that only the SRN is directly funded.  Local roads are funded by local authority spend, which (in large but declining proportion) comes from central government.  Indeed, the LA funding for local roads from central governement is determined on the basis of a formula set by central government.  That money then goes into a pot to fight it out with things like adult social care, libraries and schools.  As the amount of central government grant has declined over time, local authorities have for some reason prioritised not turfing grannies out of care homes above fixing potholes or building cycleways.

Libraries? Probably not for much longer (they're closing left, right, and centre, or being kept open by volunteering elderly folks).   Schools? Ditto (academies).   Basically, give it 5-10 years and the only thing central government will let local authorities fund is adult social care.  Everything else will be run by corporates and funded/controlled directly by central government.   Although I'm sure central government will still let local authorities take the blame for anything going wrong...

The picture is much more complex than that: those authorities that have the will and the wherewithal (Greater Manchester being the obvious case) are seeing major shifts of power towards them.

Ush wrote:

Duncann wrote:

It's nothing to do with road funding.

So, out of the limited pot of money available for developing public infrastructure, if we spend it all on roads then there will magically be more money available for other infrastructure?

Duncann wrote:

It's simply that rail cannot hope to ever have the network coverage and connectivity that road has. Even if you diverted all road funding and doubled it.

Rail doesn't need to have the same network coverage and connectivity. It needs _more_ of both to be sure, but all that's needed is that it within easy bicycling and walking distances of more people. That will require maintaining quieter, lower speed roads. As the main damagers of roads (heavy goods trucks) are displaced by goods rail networks the maintenance of pothole-free surfaces will become easier. All of that will require a lot of money: money which is currently going into maintaining a system which has evolved into an expensive, unsatisfactory, GHG emitting, and most importantly cyclist-hostile one.

"all that's needed is that it within easy bicycling and walking distances of more people"

Not so. Sure, it's nice to have an accessible rail station but there's a good chance that the lines won't actually be going in the direction you want. I live next to a railway station with several routes passing through. The route to work isn't bad (although it's still as quick to cycle when you add the walk at either end) but mostly they don't actually take me where I want to go without further connections and delay. It's almost always quicker to use flexible, door-to-door private transport - in my case a bike but in most people's case, a car.

And most people don't, and won't,  live close to a rail stop. 

Gizmo_ wrote:

Assuming decent broadband speeds, in a modern digital economy there is simply no need to locate next door to everyone else;

People have been saying that since the internet came to prominence but what's happened is often the reverse. Now that everyone can connect to everyone else electronically, the premium on face-to-face contact and informal encounters has actually increased. Hence why people and firms are prepared to pay huge costs (and not just £) money to located themselves and their activity in London.

Gizmo_ wrote:

The problem is not that billions are being spent on these schemes.  The problem is that only the very smallest crumbs are falling from that table to support genuinely good planning, development and improvement for good quality, modern, sustainable transport.  That's a scandal.

Agreed.

Dr Mcr wrote:

Most of these infrastructure projects are for movement of people and goods over a distance that you would not consider using a bike for. 

Let's stop the car bashing and concentrate on getting additional investment to encourage people out of their cars for shorter joirneys. 

I agree that people should not be using cars most of the time. Two miles down the road type journeys when walking/cycling/scooting/rollerblading would have the job done and be far better for them. I live in town and work just outside of town. We have three kids two dogs and don't have a car. I can afford one, but I choose not to have one because of the abhorrent costs associated with car ownership. My families well-being has been greatly improved since choosing a car-less life.  

 I recently put it to my club about a few of us doing the Dunwich Dynamo. One of the more committed members suggested riding to london the day before. We ride with the Penzance Wheelers. How far would be considered inconsiderable?

Leviathan wrote:

Can't they just fix the roads we have already?

Although, will this tunnel have a cycle path along it?

Not sure I would want to spend 18 miles in an exhaust fume filled tunnel, but if it gets the traffic (especially the thundering HGVs) off the Woodhead and Snake passes then they would be much more pleasant to cycle on.