Dirty and Dangerous: The Case against Road Building in South East England by Green Keith MEP

Dirty and Dangerous:

The case against road building in the South East A report for Keith Taylor MEP Researcher: Gerard Kells

Contents Introduction Pages 02— —03

01 / Transport in the South East Pages 04— —07 02 / The Congestion Issue Pages 08— —09 03 / The Road Building Option Pages 10— —13 04 / Making Roads Safer? Pages 14— —19 05 / Positive Steps Forward Pages 20— —25 References Pages 26— —28

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

The South East of England is more dependent on cars than anywhere in the UK. 40% of households in the region have two or more cars or vans. The roads are Keith Taylor, Green MEP for South congested and dangerous. Hundreds of people die East England and member of the every year on our roads and thousands are admitted to Transport and Tourism Committee hospital with injuries. On top of road accidents, thouin the European Parliament sands die every year from air pollution, which is mainly caused by road transport. High traffic levels in the South East threaten our environment as well as our health. Each new car on the road adds carbon emissions to the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. New technologies such as biofuels have their own serious environmental impacts and, on a local level, the new roads promoted by the Government will cut chunks out of the beautiful countryside of South East England. Despite some progress towards safer and sustainable travel, the Government’s latest transport strategy is likely to put more cars on our roads. Underlying the Government’s transport strategy is the self fulfilling prophecy of ‘predict and provide’ for road building’. Their plan, should it come to fruition, will both account for and promote the idea of more cars on roads in the South East. Already, the Government has earmarked 27 road projects in the South East that would add 160km of new capacity at the mammoth cost of £4.3-billion. In comparison, the entire government cycling budget for the UK is paltry in comparison at £93-million. The Government is laying the ground for road building projects that are highly unlikely to meet expectations. Regional Development Agencies, abolished by the Coalition Government, have been replaced by business-dominated Local Enterprise Partnerships which have thus far failed to take environmental concerns around road building seriously. At the same time, funding for rural bus services is being slashed and the cost of rail travel is increasing above inflation year-on-year. This report makes a clear case for a change in direction in the way we travel. It shows that the South East’s roads are congested, dirty and dangerous, but that positive changes can and have been made by forward thinking local authorities. The South East needs a transport system that is safe, reliable and sustainable. At present, the Government is moving us in the wrong direction, and the vociferous road lobby are all too happy to put so-called ‘motorists rights’ above the people’s right to safe streets. But if campaigners across the region continue to make the case for safer streets, cleaner air and decent public transport, we may just change their minds. Introduction

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

This report clearly shows that laying more tarmac will not get us out of the transport problems we face in the UK. Instead the Government should: 01 / Promote development in the most sustainable locations. 02 / Reduce traffic growth so there is less need for new roads. 03 / Support rail and other public transport investment. 04 / Invest in sustainable local transport, such as cycling and walking. 05 / Put safety at the centre of policy making; by reducing speed, enforcing laws on drink driving and mobile phones and by taking back our streets from the car. 06 / Ensure transport governance models involve everyone and have sustainable development as their core goal. 07 / Minimise pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

01 /

Over-development is putting immense pressure on the South East region. Despite the promises made by successive Governments to redress the imbalance with other parts of the country the region still accounted for nearly 15% of the UK’s gross value added (GVA) in 2010, one of the highest proportions of all the English regions and countries of the UK. The region is also the most populous, at 8.6million people according to the 2011 census, an increase of 8% from 2001 and higher than the UK average. The population has traditionally been skewed away from younger adults and the population is predicted to get steadily older. The median age is 40, although this varies from 29 in Oxford to 50 in Rother. Housing in the South East is the least affordable in the UK when compared to incomes. These pressures are only likely to intensify if the Government doesn’t address the economic imbalance and centralisation of the UK.

Transport in the South East

Car-dependency According to the 2011 census, the South East had the highest proportion of households with two or more cars or vans (40%), and also the highest total increase in cars and vans available for use by households—up by more than half-a-million since 2001. The region is particularly prone to traffic The South East is home to major ports such as Dover and Southampton which generate large amounts of freight movements across the UK. The region also has two major airports: Gatwick and Heathrow. This report does not deal with airports in detail, but the Green Party is currently fighting proposals to increase airport capacity in the South East. The Channel Tunnel also contributes to congestion in the area. Around 1-million trucks use the tunnel each year which subsequently impacts on roads in the South East. In addition, Eurostar transports approximately 9-million passengers annually. Proximity to London The South East’s proximity to London ultimately has a huge influence on transport developments in the region. As many as half of the journeys made in the South East are to the capital. A large number of South East settlements are part of a commuter belt around London and the inner edge of the region merges into the capital. But the South East also includes large rural areas as well as coastal communities. Although many of the cities are laid out traditionally, the South East includes several new towns, notably Milton Keynes, where the grid network of roads is not conducive to public transport and tends to encourage greater car use.

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

THE SOUTH EAST The most car dependent region in the UK IN 2010 THERE WERE ESTIMATED TO BE 68 CARS FOR EVERY 100 PEOPLE AGED OVER 17 This data excludes London

× 68 THE HIGHEST MOTORING COSTS IN THE UK Residents in the South East travelled 8,100 miles per person in 2007–08, four-fifths by car

8,100mi OVER 25,000 ACCIDENTS WERE RECORDED IN THE SOUTH EAST DURING 2008

× 100 2.4% ONLY 2.4% OF TRAVEL WAS BY LOCAL BUS Other forms of public transport accounted for a further 12% of the distance travelled

12% IN 2011 APPROXIMATELY 12% OF TRAVEL TO WORK WAS BY BICYCLE As opposed to 68% by car

× 25,000+ In relation to the vehicle kilometres travelled, the number of accidents was below the national average: 289 compared with 335 accidents per-billion vehicle kilometres on average in the UK. The average vehicle road flow in 2010 was 26,000 vehicles per kilometre per-day, substantially higher than the average of 17,300 in the UK.

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

Poor planning The region’s proximity to the capital is one key reason why there is so much pressure for development in the South East. In the past, the level of housing development was determined by the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which required the allocation of land for 654,000 houses in the region (2006–26). One of the driving forces behind the Coalition Government’s decision to abolish RSS’s was this pressure on local authorities to release countryside for housing; they wanted to decide for themselves how much housing they needed. However, the Government’s replacement, the National Planning Policy Framework ( NPPF), has reiterated the need for local plans to meet national housing targets, and also skewed the process further in favour of developers.01 There is little evidence that private sector house building has ever reached the levels required for the current Government housing targets. The main result of the targets is to force local authorities to designate more greenfield sites in unsustainable locations, resulting in increased travel to new housing estates.02 Similarly, greenfield industrial sites and out of town supermarkets encourage longer trips. The current Government’s planning rhetoric promotes ‘economic growth’ at the expense of other factors. Support for brownfield regeneration in the NPPF is weak. Unless the Government does more to support regeneration, communities in urban areas will suffer decline while environmental pressures in the countryside increase.03 Traffic growth threatens our environment The South East contains two National Parks (the New Forest and the South Downs) and has considerable areas designated as of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). Together they amount to around a third of the total area, the highest proportion of any region. In addition, the region has 5% of the UK’s heritage coast, part of a spectacular coastline covering 1,250-miles and consisting of iconic cliffs, estuaries, fortified ports and castles. Car dependency creates immediate pressures on the environment but also longer term increases in pollution and noise. In 2010, the South East had the highest level of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from domestic and road transport sources, as well as the highest overall level of CO2 emissions compared with the other English regions, although the rate of CO2 emissions per resident in the South East was among the lowest of the regions at 7.1-tonnes per person. Traffic levels are currently falling, but if they are allowed to pick up as we come out of recession, carbon emissions are likely to rise. Even if Britain exploited new sources of fossil fuels such as shale gas and oil, (which the Green Party oppose) these would have a limited life span and would add to climate emissions. Equally, fuelling significant numbers of cars using biofuels would require vast swaths of land to be taken from agriculture or forests, both in this country and abroad, with devastating environmental and social implications.

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

Can HS2 readdress the balance? The Government claims it is committed to redressing the UK’s economic balance. In paticular, the proposed new High Speed 2 (HS2) rail line is supposed to act as a catalyst for spreading economic growth to other regions, reducing development and environmental pressure on the South East. This assertion, however, has been widely questioned. The Transport Select Committee’s technical report by Oxera found little evidence to determine which regions would gain the most from HS2 and the committee’s conclusion reflected that uncertainty. Similarly, the National Audit Office said ‘It is not clear how HS2 will deliver the Department’s strategic objective of delivering and rebalancing economic growth.’ 04 The Green Party opposes HS2, as it believes that the money would be better spent on local rail services. Sustainable transport There have been positive opportunities for promoting sustainable transport in the South East but they are relatively poorly funded and the system of transport decision-making continues to be weighted towards larger capital projects. There have been some successes in raising levels of cycling and walking; furthermore, the introduction of Local Sustainable Transport Funds (LSTF) could put these initiatives on a wider footing, with larger individual budgets attracting greater political commitment. There has also been an ongoing reduction in road casualties and an improvement in survival rates due to better emergency response and road safety initiatives as well as a reduction in traffic levels in the last few years.05 There has been new investment in public transport and rail services but cuts to bus grants are a major threat to buses in rural areas. It is also important to set Public Transport improvements against the continued support for road building by many local authorities and the Government. In recent years, Transport Planning has benefitted from the positive engagement of communities and environmental and sustainable transport experts. This was largely engendered by the roads debate of the 1980s but it is being eroded by the current Government’s changes to regional policy making.

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

02 /

Is congestion really the problem?

The Congestion Issue

Congestion results from car dependency. Successive governments have attempted to tackle congestion but, more often than not, have focussed on the symptoms of congestion rather than its causes. Various figures are quoted for the cost of congestion. They vary between £7-billion nationally, as quoted by the Prime Minister, to £30-billion. The genesis of these figures is often unclear but they mask a more basic problem: we will never eradicate congestion. There is no guarantee that investing £1-billion in transport infrastructure will reduce congestion by a similar amount. Furthermore, it may not reduce the overall cost at all. The vicious cycle of roadbuilding

This problem is made worse by the kind of cost-benefit analysis used to justify road building. Road Planners make their calculations by predicting the number of cars in the future, estimating the cost of delays and then adding those up to get an overall cost-benefit. The analysis is very limited, as it takes too little account of potential changes in behaviour and attitudes over time. While this approach has been tweaked following criticisms in the 1990s, the Government still predicates the need for road building on high levels of traffic growth. This creates a vicious cycle, as building and widening roads encourages new and longer trips to be made. This problem is exacerbated because while the Highways Agency is responsible for the motorway and trunk road network in England, local authorities manage all the other roads. Transport planners tend to concentrate primarily on their own networks. So, for example the Highways Agency’s promotion of hard shoulder running may reduce conges� tion on motorways but will inevitably lead to extra traffic joining local roads. Ultimately, the Government is fighting a losing battle against congestion by laying more tarmac. Instead, the Green Party would like to see a Government transport policy which promotes alternative ways to travel in order to ease pressure on roads. Can we solve congestion? Solving congestion is fraught with difficulties. Once a road is full, there is likely to be ‘suppressed demand’ to use it. Providing additional capacity may simply allow for longer trips, to out of town shopping centres for example.06 Vehicles using strategic roads always end up on local roads or in cities. Therefore, removing congestion on strategic roads only leads to increased congestion on connecting roads. The Coalition Government’s strategy to reduce congestion has been to remove pinch points — junctions where there are long jams — but this simply moves those jams onto the next junction and creates bigger, more disruptive jams because traffic is less well managed.

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

The transport priorities for each Local Authority (sometimes working together) are set out in their Local Transport Plans (LTP) and their response to congestion is driven by local issues. While many across the South East embrace demand management, road building or widening is still often promoted. Case studies: For West Sussex County Council, road building is a top priority. This means changes to the A27 and A23 trunk road, which are considered key to economic growth. Other strategic goals are considered interim measures while these improvements are achieved. Traffic growth is seen as inevitable because ‘it is a largely rural county, [where] car use is likely to remain popular and, in some cases, only available mode of transport.’ 07 Milton Keynes is the city most associated with car dependency in the South East, with a grid network which seems designed to create a motorised, segregated city. But its LTP vision has the aim that ‘By 2031, Milton Keynes will have the most sustainable transport system in the country, increasing its attractiveness as a place to live, work, visit, and do business.’ 77% of commuters already travel by car and the predictions are for a growth of 57% in traffic by 2031, though it is unclear if this is realistic given the predicted increase in congestion hot spots.08 Milton Keynes Council estimate that by 2018, average speeds will have reduced by 6%, resulting in a 67% increase in total travel time. If that is the case, it should spur people to make more positive choices. The council is making some strides in that direction, for example, a ‘Smarter Choices’ approach to encouraging people out of their cars. How�ever, it is also proposing to widen junctions to facilitate traffic, duelling the A421 from M1 Junction 13 to the Kingston Roundabout (A5130) and on to the M40 in Oxfordshire and proposing the Olney and Bletchley Southern Bypass.09

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

03 /

A failed solution

The Road Building Option

The Thatcher administration announced that it would undertake the ‘biggest road building programme since the Romans’. Under a philosophy driven by ‘predict and provide’ number crunching and macro economic theory, it produced a huge list of potential motorway expansions and bypasses to be built on the trunk road network. By 1997, however, the philosophy that we could build our way out of congestion had been widely discredited and much of the network contained in their 1980s ‘Roads for Prosperity’ list was never built. Few schemes survived into the Labour period, although they did build the M6 toll, a white elephant experiment in toll motorways which both failed to reduce congestion levels onto the M6 and to attract lorries to use it.10 It was clear that building roads was fuelling traffic growth and that traffic on new bypasses was being quickly replaced in towns and cities. Moreover the impact of climate change and the cost to the environment led to high profile public protests. The problems for those promoting road building were exacerbated by a series of reports from the Standing Advisory Committee for Trunk Road Assessment on ‘generated traffic, roads, the economy and later to the Eddington report, which poured cold water on the simplistic economic notions that underpinned an over-reliance on road building.11 A particular problem in the past was the lack of post-operational analysis to check whether the claimed benefits materialised. The Highways Agency now produces five-year after reports on major projects. In 2006, the Campaign to Protect Rural England published ‘Beyond Transport Infrastructure’; an analysis of how new roads had fared. One of the roads considered in detail was the A27 Polegate Bypass. The analysis suggested that the predicted benefits had not been realised, that traffic had increased (by up to 27% in the first year) and that it had had some negative economic impacts, such as the bypassing of Polegate by shoppers to go to Eastbourne.12 In 2010, the ‘Campaign for Better Transport’ published the ‘Billion Pound Gamble’ using the Highway Agency’s own studies. They refer to ‘a demonstrable trend, both oneyear and five-years after a scheme has opened, for schemes to have higher levels of traffic, congestion and more detrimental impact on the local environment than forecast.’ They called on the Government to put a moratorium on expensive new road building until more accurate and useful forecasting was created.13

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

Is road building returning? Under the coalition Government the pro-road building rhetoric has returned. ‘We lose £7-billion-a-year because of congestion on our roads,’ Mr Cameron complained, ‘and yet the last administration only built around 25-miles of new motorway which by the way is fewer than the number of transport ministers in that government.’ 14

The current Government’s road building programme is very different to the 1980s. Some schemes are still designed to meet demand but many local authority proposals are driven by greenfield development pressures. In July 2013, the Government announced its ‘Action for Roads’ plan following the June 2013 report by the treasury on ‘Investing in Britain’s future’. The report notes regular and severe congestion on the M25 and on strategic roads along the South Coast. It predicts that congestion will spread onto most strategic roads by 2040, based on traffic continuing to grow in accordance with previous trends. This relies on the assumption that the recent reductions in traffic are merely a temporary blip. Moreover, such predictions are based on the huge assumption that rising fuel prices, peak oil and the problem of congestion will not act as brakes on growth. The Government proposed to spend £30–50-billion on road building over a 10–15-year period, including four lanes from London to Reading, on the M4. Half the money was spent on managed motorways with running the hard shoulder, avoiding the cost and controversy of motorway widening. This accounted for 221-miles of lane according to the Treasury. Such schemes are judged less controversial than traditional motorway widening. They require ‘no land take’ and so there is less public engagement and may be no public inquiry. However, this also means there is less debate about whether widening schemes contribute to a wider growth in traffic and encourage congestion on other roads.15 A great deal of new road building is local authority driven. In their report ‘Roads to Nowhere’ in 2012, the Campaign for Better Transport identified 27 projects in the South East that would add 160km of new capacity at a cost of £4.3-billion. Most were promoted by local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). As a comparison, in August 2013 the Government announcement an additional £94-million for cycling schemes across the whole country.16

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

Of all the recent road schemes, the most controversial in the South East, and perhaps the whole country, has been the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road, which cuts through the Coombe Haven Valley. The scheme has led to the return of direct action protests, following a long-term campaign to stop this construction. It is a classic example of a road which would generate extra traffic, which in turn would increase carbon emissions. Like many bypasses, it would fail to address the 80% of the traffic which goes into and out of Hastings, where public transport improvement has lagged behind the desire for a new bypass. Campaigners say East Sussex Council has resolutely refused to consider detailed suggestions of sustainable transport alternatives, even though the road is categorised by the Department for Transport as offering ‘low to poor Benefit Cost Ratio’. Like so many new roads, its construction has been driven as much by development pressure as by transport needs. East Sussex Council wants to build between 1,200 and 2,000 houses and a 50,000 square metre business park on the route. The location of this development is in itself a new generator of traffic.17

Proposals are also being challenged at Public Inquiry for improvements on the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury. The Woodland Trust are concerned about the impact on nine-hectares of woodland and the Green Party argue that the road will generate traffic rather than address the growth in car dependency. Kent County Council is advocating a new lower Thames crossing despite its local environmental impacts and the potential for higher volumes of traffic to also increase carbon emissions.18 They see it as a necessary solution to free up a vital national connection and support job creation in Kent and Essex. Opponents, such as ‘Protect Kent’, have questioned the environmental capacity to support the massive expansion of the Thames Gateway as well as the lack of demand management alternatives. They also question the predictions of HGV growth and stress the need for alternative solutions, including support for more rail-based freight and addressing the charges for foreign lorries passing through the UK (for example from Dover to Holyhead), which account for 80% of traffic through Dover and Folkestone.19 Sustrans, the transport charity, challenge the reliance on long term forecasts and the lack of road building alternatives, pointing out that over half of light vehicle trips and 20% of HGV trips are regional or local.20

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

THE COST OF ROAD BUILDING A selection of road proposals in the South East

£500,000,000

THE COST TO INCREASE ROAD CAPACITY ON THE A21 BETWEEN TONBRIDGE AND PENBURY 21

£500,000,000

AMONG THE LARGEST PROPOSALS FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE REGION IS THE PROPOSED LOWER THAMES CROSSING ESTIMATED AT

£1,000,000,000

£500,000,000 £500,000,000

LINK ROADS FOR THE PROPOSED LOWER THAMES CROSSING COULD COST A FURTHER

£2,000,000,000

£500,000,000 £500,000,000 £500,000,000

ESTIMATED TOTAL

£3,500,000,000

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

04 /

Positive steps

Making Roads Safer?

In 2011, deaths on the road rose slightly against a downward trend since 2000 in most categories, including pedestrians, drivers and motorcyclists. There were fewer deaths (per-million population) than any of our European neighbours. However the figures remain far too high at 1,900 deaths and 25,000 people seriously injured.22 19,000 children are hurt on the roads and 2,500 are killed or seriously injured. The most worrying trend is in cycling accidents which continue to rise in all categories apart from those killed. Approximately 20% of cyclist deaths in the UK are on the South Eastâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s heavily trafficked network. Fatalities are highest on rural roads, with 40% on rural A roads and 21% on other rural roads. These road accidents have resulted in over 38,000 emergency admissions to hospital, two-thirds of which were for minor or moderate injuries, including fractures. The Government publishes comparative statistics for crashes and injuries across local authorities and most of these are improving. These can help determine which interventions are best in particular areas but they also have to be seen in context when making comparisons as the examples below show and opposite.23

NO. OF COLLISIONS ON RURAL ROADS Highest three in the South East 2011 Hampshire Kent Surrey

1620+1620+1620+1620+1620+1620= 1620 2273+227 3+227 3+227 3+227 3+227 3 = 2273 1907+190 7+190 7+190 7+190 7+190 7= 1907

NO. OF COLLISIONS ON URBAN ROADS Highest three in the South East 2011 Hampshire Kent Surrey

1633+163 3+163 3+163 3+163 3+163 3 = 1633 1938+193 8+193 8+193 8+193 8+193 8= 1938 2116+211 6+211 6+211 6+211 6+211 6= 2116

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

CASUALTIES BY POPULATION Highest for all categories in the South East 2011 per 10,000 population East Sussex Surrey Portsmouth Surrey

1+ = 0.48 deaths 51+51+51 = 50.74 casualties 7+ 7 = 7.06 serious injuries 46+46+46 = 45.6 slight injuries

CASUALTIES BY AGE Young people highest KSI (killed or seriously injured) in 2011

AGE 0–5

AGE 6–10

AGE 11–15

AGE 16–20

CASUALTIES BY LOCAL AUTHORITY ROAD Highest three in the South East 2011 per 100 miles Brighton & Hove Portsmouth Slough

278+278+278 = 278.21 278+278+278 = 278.09 256+256+256 = 256.40

Counties such as Kent and Surrey deal with more accidents, explained in part by the nature of their road networks. On the other hand, local authorities such as Brighton & Hove and Portsmouth have a poorer record when you look at casualties per 100-miles of their roads.

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

Air Pollution: The Invisible Killer The South East’s reliance on driving poses a threat to public health, that isn’t taken into account in the road traffic accident figures. Air pollution causes 29,000 deaths and contributes to over 200,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. Emissions from cars and other vehicles contribute around 70% of the air pollution in our towns and cities. A number of towns across the South East such as Winchester, Southampton, Oxford, Brighton & Hove, Canterbury and Reading have breached EU limits on air pollution levels and the Supreme Court has ruled that the UK Government is contravening EU air pollution laws. Research from California has shown that children growing up near motorways can suffer from permanently reduced lung capacity. This is an extremely worrying finding which highlights the desperate need for more research into the health affects of air pollution. Government figures show that the health costs of just one pollutant, PM 2.5 , are already £15-billion each year. Furthermore, the World Health Organisation has recently classed air pollution as carcinogenic after research found that 230,000 deaths worldwide were caused by air pollution in 2010. Despite the health implications of air pollution, the UK Government is trying to change EU law to avoid taking action on cutting the levels of harmful pollutants in the air.

What’s behind this? Not all statistical improvements can be attributed to road safety campaigns. A reduction in accidents can be attributed to an overall reduction cars on the road. The economic recession has also played a role in decreasing the number of young drivers on the road, who are more likely to be involved in crashes. Over a longer term we’ve seen a reduction in the number of children walking to school or allowed out on their own, and more broadly an increase in short trips being made by car, rather than by foot or bicycle. Improvements in medical care, including better trauma treatment, ensure more people survive road accidents. The internal safety of cars has improved, and safety measures have been introduced to reduce the impact of cars on those they hit. Successive Governments have undertaken campaigns to ensure all car occupants wear seat belts and to tackle drink driving. Laws have been introduced to control mobile phone use in cars as drivers using a mobile phone are four times more likely to crash and reaction time can be slowed by 50% regardless of whether hands free sets are used.24

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

There continues to be a lack of resources for the policing of road traffic, but the introduction of speed cameras has reduced crashes at high risk sites and has been largely self-financing, despite misinformation by self-interested opponents. However, speed cameras cannot address the issue of poor driver behaviour which is often implicated in road crashes. In this respect, retests for drivers and checks in relation to eye-sight should be given closer attention. We need to control speed One major step forward has been on speed reduction. Speed management on motorways has also improved their efficiency. On local roads, 20mph limits lower the amount of casualties and their severity and this continues to be driven forward by the 20â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Plenty campaign.25 12-million people in the UK already live in 20mph control zones. The Transport Re-search Laboratory (TRL) reviewed the impact of 250 20mph zones in Great Britain and found that on average:

The annual frequency of accidents fell by 60%

The number of child pedestrian accidents fell by 70%

The number of child cyclist accidents fell by 48%

The number of accidents for all cyclists fell by 29%

60%

70%

48%

29%

60+40+A 70+30+A 48+52+A 29+71+A Although this was often accompanied by a reduction in traffic on those roads, there was no evidence of accident migration.26 Portsmouth was the first local authority in 2008 to introduce an area wide scheme covering 94% of its residential roads. Analysis for the DfT showed casualties reduced by 22% (above the national comparable average of 14%). Fatalities slightly increased but this was not seen as statistically significant.27 Similar proposals have since been rolled out elsewhere. Green Councillors have been at the forefront of promoting 20mph areas in Brighton, building on the success of safe routes to school initiatives across the town.28 In March 2013, Hampshire County Council consulted on introducing 20mph speed limits in ten areas. On average, 71% of respondents were in favour and in all cases more than half supported 20mph speed limits. The Council are aiming to proceed in all but one area.29 A positive development is the recent change in attitudes to how roads are made safer. For example, the old approach of segregating road users, putting up barriers to corral pedestrians and cyclists has been replaced by deliberate attempts to create shared

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

use of roads in some areas. This initiative improves driver awareness as they are forced to slow down and think about other users. One example that gained wide attention was the Ashford Ring Road, described as a 1970s race track of a ring road by the designers. The town has since sought a better balance between the needs of pedestrians and motorists, promoting a new design which merges the space and turns the old concrete collar into a network of streets essential for the town of the future. When the project was undertaken in 2008 it was the largest of its kind. Critically it engaged both the community and designers. At its core was the creation of a high quality civic space with environmental benefits.30 But challenges to road safety improvements remain. When parents, children and staff in Headington in Oxford dressed up as zebras to push for new pedestrian crossings near their school along with Zak the Zebra—the mascot of road safety charity Brake — a Council spokesman told them: ‘There are no plans to install crossings at the moment as our resources are very limited.’ 31 Initiatives such as pedestrian crossings can be successful in urban areas, where the majority of crashes occur. However, in rural areas where crashes are fewer in number but their severity is greater, there is an urgent need to control speed and driver behaviour. Reducing speed limits in rural villages is one important opportunity for improvement and some progress has been made in this regard. In 2004, the Department for Transport began advising councils to aim for 30mph limits as the norm in villages. Hampshire began this process in 2008 with 39 villages and by 2010 it encompassed 112. This led to an average reduction in driving speeds of 9% and crash reductions as high as 80%. The scheme is supported by education through a ‘Choose 30’ campaign.32 Nevertheless, there are still many villages where traffic speeds are too high and where rural roads remain among the most dangerous. Speed cameras are one effective tool. In 2005 the ‘national safety camera programme four-year evaluation report’ showed that speeding was reduced by 70% at speed camera sites and 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured.33 When Oxfordshire County Council withdrew funding for speed cameras in 2010, there were reports that speeding had risen by 88% at those sites. The police reported that deaths and serious injuries on roads had increased across the county (although accidents away from fixed cameras fell slightly). Subsequently, the cameras were turned back on. The Royal Automobile Club (RAC) Foundation warned that 800 more people could be killed or seriously injured each year on Britain’s roads if all the fixed and mobile speed cameras operational before the road safety grant was cut in summer 2010, were to be decommissioned.34 Speed cameras are often criticised as revenue raising exercises, but the revenue from speed cameras does allow them to be a comparatively cheap, self-financing way to make roads safer. They are not a tax on motorists but a fine levied because someone breaks the law. The siting of speed cameras is currently subject to strict criteria and they must be highly visible. Introducing unidentified speed cameras might result in a greater reduction in speeding behaviour.

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

What does this cost? While every accident is a personal tragedy, there is also a huge economic cost. In 2011 each fatal accident cost £1.8-million and serious accidents were estimated to cost £210,000 each. The total value of crash prevention that year was estimated at £15.6-billion and possibly as high as £34.8-billion if accidents where police weren’t involved are included. In October 2012, the European Green Party published ‘The True Costs of Automobility’ which sought to quantify all the external costs of car dependency. While this analysis includes air pollution, noise and other forms of pollution, the two major costs were crashes and CO2 emissions.35

EU-27

TOTAL COST OF CARS IN 2008 FOR EU-27

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom

100+100 = €9.988-million 100+100 = €10.222-million 30+30 = €2.988-million 4+ = €0.368-million 50+50 = €5.112-million 40+40 = €4.2-million 5+ = €0.459-million 50+50 = €4.968-million 500+500 = €50.498-million 880+880 = €88.263-million 40+40 = €4.432-million 40+40 = €4.346-million 30+30 = €2.890-million 410+410 = €40.525-million 1+ = €0.955-million 10+ = €1.265-million 1+ = €0.889-million 1+ = €0.137-million 130+130 = €13.396-million 150+150 = €14.870-million 50+50 = €4.925-million 50+50 = €5-million 20+20 = €1.978-million 20+20 = €1.764-million 310+310 = €31.728-million 80+80 = €8.032-million 590+590 = €59.188-million

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

05 /

Positive Steps Forward

It’s clear that road building cannot resolve our transport problems and that safety on our roads still needs be to be tackled seriously (despite the various schemes in place), so what should be done to tackle our deep rooted transport issues? Reducing car dependency

The most important step is to reduce the need to travel and to invest in alternative travel modes. Primarily, that means making an assessment of where development happens and then taking steps to return planning policy to a ‘brownfield first’ approach that focusses on sustainable development. In particular, the Government should address the way housing land is allocated and the senseless current practices which see local plans being forced to allocate greenfield sites to meet national targets. Funding should also be more targeted to areas in need of regeneration. Unfortunately, the funding function of the Regional Development Agencies, abolished by the Coalition Government, was not carried forward to the Local Enterprise Partnerships that replace them. One positive step would be for the Government to review its National Planning Policy Framework and give stronger advice to local authorities in support of brownfield first policies. There is also a need to invest in our public transport network. The growth in rail patronage both into London and between locations in the region is expected to continue and that must be supported. However, as with roads, the extent to which passenger numbers can grow is dependent on investment to ensure trains can physically and comfortably accommodate passengers, and are well-located. In 2011, Network Rail published their Route Utilisation Strategy for London and the South East which includes detailed proposals for improvements across London’s transport network.36 In April 2013, Network Rail consulted on a Market Study for rail in the South East and London. The study predicted high levels of growth on many lines for the next 30-years. On Thameslink and Sussex Fast from London Bridge, growth could be as high as 115% but in many other places it would be 30–40%. Their case studies show that the overall journey time could be reduced (average travel and waiting time). For example, Portsmouth to London could be reduced from 100-minutes to 75-minutes, and Portsmouth to Southampton from 90-minutes to 60-minutes. Clearly, such reductions would enable more car drivers would travel by rail.37 Another important consideration is investment in bus services, as we need to improve both the reliability and quality of bus services. While rail can support longer distance travel, buses will always be the workhorse of local public transport.

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

Promoting sustainable transport Local sustainable transport, such as walking and cycling, are vital components of any transport system and should be prioritised for investment. There are good, current examples of forward thinking but they are too few and underfunded. One important opportunity in this respect is the LSTF which is being promoted by the DfT under a system of competitive bidding. This funding stream has encouraged councils to take a holistic approach to sustainable transport investment, mainstreaming it in local town halls and allowing councils to package money together to create serious bidding pots. Schemes can include the revenue funding to maintain the projects as well as the initial capital costs. In the South East there were 16 successful bids announced in 2011. Among the exciting projects was Southampton’s Sustainable Travel City designed to deliver a 12% change in modal share away from the private car to other modes, and a real terms cut in emissions from transport (including freight) of between 10–20%, despite the addition of 7-million more trips per annum over the next 20-years.38 Brighton & Hove also put forward a successful bid on the Lewes Road corridor which is one of only three key arterial routes into the city and which carries high volumes of both strategic and local traffic as well as linking to the South Downs National Park. Increases in car usage over the years has caused chronic severance between the east and the western side of the area, traffic congestion, poor air and noise quality, and high accident rates. The Council’s package includes improvements to public transport, walking and cycling access, and travel planning targeting residents, the universities and local schools.39 Three cities in the South East (Brighton, Woking and Aylesbury) benefited from the forerunner to LSTF. Cycling Towns were set up by the now defunct Cycling England with funding to promote cycling and improve infrastructure. In Woking, this led directly to the ban on cycling in the town centre being lifted. Significant work to complete the Basingstoke Canal towpath saw a dramatic increase in cycling (between 75% and 213%) as well as walking (89%), enabling short journeys to be made sustainably and connecting the places where people lived to the town centre and business centres.40 In August 2013, David Cameron announced £94-million of funding for cycling in the UK (to be match funded). It included £800,000 for Oxford, £3.8-million for the South Downs and £3.6-million for the New Forest National Parks. Although welcomed by some commentators, Christian Wolmar, who was on the board of Cycling England, pointed out that this amount was actually smaller than that being spent before ‘Cycling England’ was axed. So despite some positive examples, there is a need to broaden the reach of such schemes and to increase funding significantly.41 Furthermore, the biggest challenge to changing behaviour is in rural areas where car dependency is highest. Rural isolation has been damaged by cuts to funding for rural bus services. In 2011, the Transport select committee looked into the impact following the spending cuts which they estimated could take £200–300-million out of overall bus revenue. It found that by June 2011, over 70% of English local authorities had decided to reduce funding for sup-

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

ported bus services. The extent of the reductions varied considerably, although in general, rural, evening and Sunday bus services were most affected.’ 42 Age UK’s recent report entitled ‘Later Life in Rural Areas’ also highlighted how this reduction could impact heavily on vulnerable elderly people. According to their report, 35% of pensioners do not have access to a car or van and in 2009, even before the cuts, only 47% of rural households had access to an hourly bus service within 13-minutes walk. This is likely to worsen as the elderly population increases, especially if more housing is promoted in unsustainable locations.43 Engaging everyone Successful solutions to car dependency require the involvement of communities and the engagement of social and environmental experts as well as business. In the 1970s and 1980s social engagement was very limited. The situation was so bad that members of the public weren’t even able to challenge the need for a road at a public inquiry. This is reflected in the comments of one Roads Inspector, who said: ‘The Public can never have the evidence and information on which it can challenge a proposal.’44 Then in the 1990s, politicians, both locally and nationally, began to recognise the importance of engaging all sectors. Regional Assemblies were specifically required to include environmental and social interests in their decision-making forums. The multi-modal framework which sought to examine transport issues in a more holistic way, often included environmentalists on their steering panels and the approach to Regional Funding of Transport compared schemes across regions. The expertise of environmental organisations such as ‘Campaign for Better Transport’ became widely recognised. Thus, the removal of Regional Assemblies has fragmented strategic decision making. The Coalition Government has invested a great deal of effort in promoting Local Enterprise Partnerships but these are exclusively business and local authority organisations, allowing selected business leaders access to key local decisions makers. Few have third sector board members and in many cases there has been little engagement with environmental and social groups. The evidence so far is that environmental concerns do not weigh heavily with LEPs. There are eight LEPs in the South East region, some overlapping with other regions (such as the South East LEP which includes among others both Essex and Kent). As well as a mismatch with European Parliamentary constituencies, this complex arrangement is harder to keep track of for external social and environmental bodies. LEPs are also not covered by Freedom of Information rules. Local Nature Partnerships were created in the Natural Environment White Paper and one of their functions was to liaise with LEPs but they are relatively poorly funded, their geographies do not match the LEPs and they do not necessarily have expertise in sustainable planning and transport or prioritise it. It is worrying that the drive to include environmental and social groups in transport decision-making following the roads debate of the 1990s appears to be floundering. The Government consulted in 2012 on the setting up of Local Transport Bodies which would be responsible for major transport schemes (generally over £5-million) in a

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

local authority area. The consultation laboured the need for these to match Local Enterprise geographies. It did not suggest any place for environmental groups (although does not actually forbid it). The boards are in their infancy but there is little evidence of them involving environmental interests. This, coupled with a Government rhetoric that stresses the importance of building roads, suggests we could see a return to a ‘predict and provide’ approach to transport.45 In May, the South East LEP produced its ‘Framework for Prioritising Strategic Transport Infrastructure in the SE LEP area’. Its aim was ‘To identify those transport and infrastructure developments which are of greatest importance to the growth of the South East LEP area.’ It judged schemes primarily on their potential to stimulate growth. To this end, it sought to decrease the 45 minute journey time to hubs in the area, effectively making it easier to travel further. Only after that workstream was complete, did the study consider the environmental impacts of schemes along with a basket of viability criteria. The study concluded that only economic considerations should be used to prioritise transport projects. Of the schemes submitted, 60 out of 94 were road schemes and the prioritisation system consistently favours them.46 The Buckinghamshire/Thames Valley LEP’s Growth Plan identifies seven transport issues all of which involve road building.47 The Coalition Government’s decision to unpick regional structures also resulted in a loss of regional statistical analysis making it harder to maintain a picture of overall trends in the south east. The 1990s roads protest demonstrated widespread concern over the direction of transport policy. That has influenced decision making processes for the last decade and ensured a greater voice for those advocating greener alternatives. It is important that the next generation of politicians understand the importance of good transport policy. That means engaging with the public, with users and with environmental and social groups.

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

Conclusion The South East can achieve a greener and safer transport system and this report has highlighted good practice. There is much more that needs to be done to address the stubborn rate of car dependency. In order to control traffic growth and protect the environment, Government, local authorities, communities and stakeholders need to come together to pursue policies which: 01 / Promote development in the most sustainable locations. 02 / Reduce traffic growth so there is less need for new roads. 03 / Support rail and other public transport investment. 04 / Invest in sustainable local transport, such as cycling and walking. 05 / Put safety at the centre of policy making; by reducing speed, enforcing laws on drink driving and mobile phones and by taking back our streets from the car. 06 / Ensure transport governance models involve everyone and have sustainable development as their core goal. 07 / Minimise pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

Further reading If you are interested in how we can make transport in the UK safer and more sustainable, you might consider joining one of these campaigns:

20s Plenty Campaigning for sensible speed limits in built up areas 20splentyforus.org.uk Clean Air London Keeping track of air pollution levels in the UK and campaigning to clean up the air we breathe cleanairinlondon.org The Campaign for Better Transport Campaigning for sustainable and high quality public transport bettertransport.org.uk

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

References — main statistical sources Census 2011 result shows increase in population of the South East / OFNS, July 2012 2011 Census Analysis Method of Travel to Work in England and Wales Report, February 2013 Regional Profile of South East Economy / OFNS, June 2013 Regional Profiles: Key Statistics — South East / OFNS, August 2012 Portrait of the South East 2010 –2011 / OFNS Census gives insights into characteristics of the South East’s population / OFNS, December 2012 Regional Profiles: Environment— South East / OFNS, December 2012 Regional Profiles: Key Statistics — South East / OFNS, August 2012 Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2011 / DfT Annual Road Traffic Estimates: Great Britain 2012 / DfT, June 2013 Road Transport Forecasts 2011 Results from the Department for Transport’s National Transport Model / DfT, January 2012 Reliability of journeys on Highways Agency’s motorway and ‘A’ road network: England / DfT, April 2013 Congestion on local authority managed ‘A’ roads: England —January to March 2013 / DfT Congestion on local authority managed ‘A’ roads: England — October to December 2012 / DfT, February 2013 Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main Results 2011, DfT Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: Annual Report 2011, DfT Regional house prices: affordability and income ratio, House of Commons, 2012

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

Other references 01 / The South East Plan Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England May 2009, GOSE

12 / Beyond Transport Infrastructure, 2006, CPRE

02 / https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-datasets/live-tables-on-house-building

13 / Billion Pound Gamble, 2010, CfBT 14 / http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/03/19/ david-cameron-s-road-privatisation-speech-in-full

03 / National Planning Policy Framework, Para 17, DCLG, March 2012 04 / Review of the Government’s case for a High Speed Rail programme. Prepared for the Transport Select Committee, Oxera, June 2011 High Speed 2: a review of early programme preparation, NAO, May 2013 05 / Congestion/Commuting, An Economic Barometer, Trafficmaster/AA, July – August 2009 06 / Oxfordshire Local Transport Plan 2013 – 30 Revised April 2012 07 / West Sussex Transport Plan 2011–26, Feb 2011 08 / A Transport Vision and Strategy for Milton Keynes Local Transport Plan 3 —2011– 31, April 2011 09 / Ibid

15 / Action for Roads, July 2013, DfT Investing in Britain’s future, June 2013, Treasury 16 / Roads to Nowhere, CfBT, Oct 2012 http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/12/ cycling-groups-welcome-government-fund 17 / http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/roadsandtransport/ bexhillhastingslinkroad/default.htm http://hastingsalliance.com/ http://www.transport-network.co.uk/Bexhill-Hastings-linkroad-has-low-value-for-money-campaigners-find/9224#. Uh4blo9wa1s 18 / Growth without gridlock, a transport delivery plan for Kent, December 2010, Kent County Council 19 / LTC Consultation Response, Protect Kent 20 / http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/bridge-too-far

10 / Roads for Prosperity, DfT, 1989 The M6 Toll, five years on: Counting the cost of congestion relief, CfBT, August 2010 11 / Trunk roads and the generation of traffic, Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA), 1994 Transport and the Economy, Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA), 1999 The Eddington Transport Study The case for action: Sir Rod Eddington’s advice to Government, December 2006

21 / http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/campaigning/wood watch/case-studies/Pages/A21-update.aspx#.Uh4cJY9wa1s http://kentgreenparty.org/resources/kent/A21_Dualling.pdf 22 / Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main Results 2011, Office for National Statistics 23 / http://road-collisions.dft.gov.uk/indicators

A report for Keith Taylor MEP, published December 2013

24 / http://think.direct.gov.uk/mobile-phones.html 25 / http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/ 26 / http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/trl_reports.htm 27 / http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/living/8403.html 28 / http://www.brightonhovegreens.org/news/green-lightfor-20-mph-in-500-city-streets.html 29 / http://www3.hants.gov.uk/hantswebnewslist?id=596509 &pagetitle=Green%20light%20for%2020mph%20trials 30 / The Ashford Ring Road Project, Kent County Council, June 2009 31 / http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10062148._Zebras__ take_to_the_streets_to_demand_school_crossings/ 32 / Transport Advisory Leaflet 1/04, DfT, Jan 2004 http://www3.hants.gov.uk/trafficmanagement/ speedlimits.htm 33 / The national safety camera programme four- year evaluation report, December 2005, UCL, PA Consulting 34 / http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englandoxfordshire-12928747 http://www.racfoundation.org/research/safety/ effectiveness-of-speed-cameras 35 / The True Costs of Automobility: External Costs of Cars Overview on existing estimates in EU-27, TU Dresden, Oct 2012

37 / Long Term Planning Process: London and South East Market Study Draft for Consultation, Network Rail, April 2013 38 / http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Southampton %20City%20Council%20LSTF%20Tranche%201%20 Bid_tcm46-335243.pdf 39 / http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/parking-andtravel/travel-transport-and-road-safety/lewes-roadtransport-improvements 40 / ‘Cycle Woking’ End of Programme Report July 2008 – March 2011, June 2011 41 / http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2013/08/cyclingannouncement-is-dishonest-spin/ 42 / House of Commons Transport Committee Bus Services after the Spending Review Eighth Report of Session 2011–12 43 / Later life in rural England, Age UK 44 / Quoted in ‘Motorway Versus Democracy’, J. Tyme, 1978 45 / Consultation Paper: Devolving local major transport schemes, Jan 2012, DfT 46 / Framework for Prioritising Strategic Transport Infra structure in the SELEP area, Final Report, May 2012, SE LEP 47 / http://www.buckstvlep.co.uk/uploads/downloads/ SEQ129_BBF_BusinessPlan_0912_LOW-1.pdf

36 / London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy, Network Rail, July 2011

Dirty and Dangerous: The case against road building in the South East

keithtaylor.org.uk keithtaylor@greenmeps.org.uk @GreenKeithMEP +44 (0)207 250 8415

Design: Ultimate Holding Company