Better Transport

18 November: The Secretary of State for Transport's decision to 'fast track' the dualling of the A11 in Norfolk is being reported as a solution to the recession. I think this is misguided: we need recession-busting public transport, not costly road schemes.

Norfolk desperately needs new trains and buses to relieve the pressure on the road network - and a recession will only increase that need. Cutting down on spending often means selling a second car or trying to drive less, but without decent public transport this leaves communities isolated and unable to reach essential services.

This is particularly relevant for bus passengers: people on low incomes and pensioners are the most likely to be dependant on buses and the most likely to struggle to make ends meet during an economic downturn. Any money being squandered on road building is money that could be improving local buses, reopening disused branch lines or even buying new carriages to relieve overcrowding. 

The solution ought to be simple: invest in public transport to help people leave their cars at home and support local post offices and other essential services to reduce the need to travel. The Government must listen to reason, not the pleas of the road builders.

November 6 - It’s almost too good to believe: Boris Johnson has finally canned the Thames Gateway Bridge. Decades of campaigning have paid off!

Plans for this thoroughly daft cross-Thames motorway have been around since the 1940s, killed off time and time again only to return from the dead to haunt another generation of campaigners. We fought it tooth and nail throughout the last public inquiry – and helped persuade the inspector to reject the scheme – only for Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Hazel Blears to ignore their recommendation and decide to resume the inquiry.

But Boris never liked the scheme and wouldn’t support it in its present form or location. A number of alternatives were bandied about - including a cable car – although rumours in the press suggested that motoring groups were desperate for the six-lane bridge. Just as we were gearing up for another fight he published Transport for London’s business plan which deleted the hated bridge – although it did contain plans for a Velib-style cycle hire scheme and a curious project to pedestrianise Park Lane.

So fingers crossed that the bridge has died for good, and won’t be crawling out of its grave to scare us once again. The time for zombies is Halloween, and that’s over already...

There are good alternatives to the bridge, and to other damaging road schemes

16 October: I've just heard that the Highways Agency has upped the speed limit on the hard-shoulder running section of the M42 from 50 to 60mph. This move will wipe out all the benefits and increase CO2 emissions - despite their claims to the contrary.

Late last year Rebecca reported on succesful trials of hard shoulder running (also called ATM) at 50mph, which saw emissions decrease by up to 10% and were amazingly popular with drivers. Then in April the Government decided to ignore its own findings and increase speed limits to 60mph. Rebecca discovered that at 60mph emissions actually increase - ruining a rare opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions.

But that's not the end of the matter. Now the HA has decided to increase the speed limit to 60mph on the ATM section of the M42 - and is making grand claims for the benefits of 60mph ATM. But these benefits are from the 50mph tests!

Of course the Government could have found out the differences were between 50 and 60mph ATM - but, as we revealed earlier this year, they didn't bother to study them.

9 October: On the Sussex coastline a beautiful patch of ancient woodland is under threat. Local developers are trying to build about 1,000 houses and a new supermarket - and widen the roads to cater for all the traffic that would be generated. I've just heard we have a new opportunity to fight this disastrous plan.

The scheme was rejected once already, but developers tweaked it and re-submitted it for planning permission. Now local campaigners tell me Worthing council has just extended the deadline for objections. Protect our Woodland has more information about the plans and really need our help. Register your objections on the council's website - it only takes a few minutes.

3 October: I've just heard that the Government has approved the Weymouth 'relief' road - and I'm furious about it. We've been supporting a great team of local campaigners trying to stop this road because it will be an environmental disaster.

Most roads damage the environment, but this one was a wrecking ball: smashing through an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and ancient woodland as well as cutting a deep gash in the Ridgeway.

Local campaigner Guy Dickinson talking about the 'relief' road.

Former Biodiversity Minister Jim Knight has been a committed supporter of the scheme since day one, taking every opportunity to blame objectors for delays and cost increases. Nothing could be further from the truth; the road suffered massive delays because Dorset County Council let the first round of planning permission expire!

When Dorset asked for feedback, 6,000 people objected, as well as ourselves, Natural England, the Wildlife Trust, CPRE and other conservation and environmental organisations. Despite strong local opposition the local paper has consistently championed the road, ignoring major errors by the County Council, which has still refused to examine alternatives.

Approving this road was Ruth Kelly's last act in office and makes a mockery of the Government's talk about climate change. It's time this Government stopped playing political football with the environment and faced up to the fact that road building and tackling climate change will never be compatible.

23 September - After months of planning, the Campaign Against the Levels Motorway (CALM) is holding a rally outside the Welsh Assembly.

CALM is campaigning against a new section of the M4 which would plough through a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The 24km toll scheme is supposed to tackle congestion, but local campaigners say it would instead increase traffic around Newport, encouraging people to commute to Cardiff and Bristol.

There is congestion on parts of the M4, but surely the solution is to improve local services and public transport - not spend a fortune on a new toll road?

You can help them by signing their petition online, or joining them on Facebook.

22 September - East Sussex County Council will sit down on the 8th of October and consider whether to build a new road between Bexhill and Hastings. The road would ruin nearby Combe Haven valley - and we need your help to stop it.

The council wants to build the £96 million road to encourage more car-dependant development: more houses and offices designed around private cars. It also wants to help more people to drive to existing industrial estates.

Local campaigners have asked us to help them secure a public inquiry for the scheme. They hope that an inquiry will give them the opportunity to discuss the problems with the scheme in public. They're writing to the Government Office of the South East, who can recomend an inquiry, and desperately need more people to write.

You can use our website to contact GOSE and make the case for an inquiry. We've even provided a template letter which explains why the road is such a bad idea. We haven't got much time, so even a short letter would help.

Fighting a road scheme? Don't miss our exciting campaigners' conference on the 25th of October, with George Monbiot as a special guest speaker.

11 September: I've been following the build-up to the Aberdeen bypass inquiry with increasing amazement. It's a textbook example of decision makers trying to force a road through without any proper debate.

The Scottish Government has instructed the inspector that the inquiry can debate "technical and environmental" aspects of the road all day long, but is forbidden from discussing whether a road is even needed in the first place.

The local group, Road Sense, tried to challenge the decision, but the inquiry inspector rejected their claims, because it would have increased the cost of the inquiry too much. Given that the road is predicted to cost between £295 and £395 million, you might think a few extra pounds spent debating whether Abdereen even needs a new road might have been well spent.

29 August: I’m always being asked what the alternatives to road building are. People look at their town centre, blighted by congestion and traffic, and imagine a nice clean bypass moving all that traffic somewhere else. Surely that’s the solution, they say. If only it were that simple!

Unfortunately, every time you build a road, more traffic gets generated, because people find it so much easier to drive that they stop using their bikes and hop back in their cars. That’s why Campaign for Better Transport thinks that the solution lies with providing people with alternatives, so they have some real travel choices.

Crazily, someone has probably already thought of a great alternative, but can’t persuade the council to adopt it. That’s because the way the Government decides between two different transport options tends to be biased towards road schemes. It makes re-opening a train station or getting a new tram scheme much harder than it should be - even though last week I showed just how expensive the roads programme had become.

So what are the alternatives? Check out our Transport Trumps page for some examples. There are plenty of road schemes looking for alternatives too, so we want to hear how you’d trump the road scheme.

16 July: I'm incredibly disappointed by the Government’s decision to postpone the 2p fuel duty rise. It would have cost drivers about £25 a year, but the money raised could have revolutionised our public transport network.

The problem isn't so much the cost – an RAC report last week showed motoring has dropped 18% in 20 years – it's what the money gets spent on. The Government should have promised to invest it in public transport to give us real travel choices, allaying people's fears of it being squandered on MPs’ second homes and John Lewis lists.

10 July: Today I found myself in a strange position: arguing against the planned car tax hikes. Green taxes should persuade people to change their behaviour, not just penalise them for a decision they've already made.

These planned taxes are problematic because they charge people for a decision they made up to seven years ago. We should be encouraging drivers to buy the cleanest car they can, and providing alternatives for people so they can give up their cars altogether. The latest car tax plans do neither.

If I were in charge, I'd make clear that car taxes would rise sharply but predictably - and I'd invest all the money in improving public transport and boosting walking and cycling. The public needs to know that green taxes are either changing behaviour or funding alternatives - or they'll lose faith in the 'polluter pays' principle altogether.

9 July: After the long-awaited revelation from the Department for Transport of its latest cost estimates for the local roads programme - up 56%! - I've been speaking to local campaigners, and finding more examples of massive overspend.

Take the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road, which started life as a fairly affordable (if unnecessary) £47.1 million back in December 2004. A few years later, and it has risen to £89.25 million - and increase of almost 90%. I spoke to local campaigner Derrick Coffee, who told me that the cost of the road had increased even further, and was now £96m.

"We sat down and calculated that for less than 10% of the cost of the road, Hastings could be provided with two major 'Greenway' pedestrian/cycle links, a real time bus information system, and a new railway station at Glyne Gap," he said. I know what I'd rather have...

Meanwhile the Weymouth Relief Road should win an award for fastest cost increase. Last Monday, when the DfT put out the latest figures, it was estimated to cost £79.6 million (up from £54 million), but when I spoke to Dave Peacock today, I learnt that since the last estimate, it's risen again - up to £89.7 million!

Meanwhile the Corby Relief Road - up 211% since it first entered the roads programme - is still on the books. When it was first proposed, Corby was the largest town in Europe not to have a railway station, but with a new station opening this year, perhaps the need for a new road has diminished somewhat. Especially one that is now three times more expensive than first thought...

7 July: After almost a year of constant pestering, we've finally convinced the Department for Transport to reveal that their local road schemes will cost a staggering 56% more than originally expected.

My predecessor, Rebecca, was promised that this information would be published back in August 2007, but it's only just slipping out now. Some of the overspend is quite shocking - the Corby Link Road is over 210% more expensive than first thought, increasing from £12m to £39.5m.

But the prize for greatest increase in price goes to the New Mersey Gateway, a road bridge which has increased from £209m to £390m - an increase of £181 million, or three times more than the Government spends each year propping up essential but unprofitable rural buses.

Although these are the craziest hikes, there's plenty of other schemes which have shot up in price. You can peruse the local road schemes programme on the DfT's website (pdf), and read more about it in today's Guardian article.

23 June: Last week I met up with Jenny, a campaigner from the White Horse Alliance, who is trying to stop an unnecessary bypass around Westbury. Their public inquiry has just started, and the group is working hard to stop the bypass getting the green light.

The Alliance is part of an amazingly successful coalition of local groups who have fought long and hard to protect their local environment from unnecessary road schemes. By working together they've managed to defeat the Wellow Bypass at the New Forest, the Salisbury Bypass scheme, the Harnham Relief Road, the Wylye Valley and the Codford-Heytesbury road schemes - not bad going!

Even getting the inquiry was a struggle - the first date was set at the convenience of the Council, but none of the Alliance's experts could attend. Thankfully their lawyers, Earth Rights Solicitors, managed to persuade the Government's Treasury Solicitors to move the date (see Rebecca's blog).

Jenny told me that the Council likes the sound of sustainable development - but has gotten a little confused about just what "sustainable" means. According to their planning officer, the bypass is "moving us to a lower carbon economy" - a claim hotly contested by the group's climate change expert, John Whitelegg (pdf).

Rebecca, my predecessor, worked really closely with the Alliance, helping them raise money and advising them throughout their campaign. Let's hope their hard work pays off, and the scheme is rejected.

The Alliance has set up a blog so you can keep up to date with the public inquiry. If you want to help them, you can donate via their website.

11 June: Throughout the fuel protest, motorists have complained that high fuel prices are forcing them out of their cars. I'm not so sure that's true, but even if it is, isn't the solution to make public transport cheaper, not cutting the cost of fuel?

According to the International Energy Association (quoted in the Daily Telegraph), fuel sales in the UK have fallen 20% in the last 12 months and drivers have begun using public transport or cycling more instead of driving. I'm sceptical, because on my cycle to work I still pass a lot of cars sitting in traffic.

It seems clear that despite a small minority of drivers who won't ever leave their cars behind, most of us only drive because it’s cheaper or easier than going by bus or train. As the cost of driving rises it often becomes easier to make the switch to public transport. Of course, this all depends on there being a bus or train which can take you where you want to go – and for many people outside cities, that’s still a long way off.

So what can be done to help people leave their cars at home? Well, there are easier ways than just pricing motorists off the road. We could start by making public transport cheaper – and pouring money into new services to help rural communities break their car dependency. Most people are prepared to change, but need a little help to do so.

Maybe we need a serious public transport lobby group to rival the various motoring groups? I'd love a lobby group that screams blue murder about costs while all the time their favourite mode of transport gets cheaper every year...

28 May: It’s not, as Jason points out in a Commentisfree article yesterday, a good time to be calling for Darling to keep the 2p tax rise. But high car taxes aren’t the problem – it’s what gets done with the money that counts.

Back in 1997, flushed with success after years of electoral failure, then-Chancellor Gordon Brown spelled out his vision for green taxation. The government’s plan, he said, was to “shift the burden of tax from ‘goods’ to ‘bads’” – penalising polluting choices but rewarding greener options. It all sounded rather rosy.

Three years later with the fuel protests in full swing, Tony Blair tried to defend the fuel duty escalator, arguing that a cut in taxes would mean reversing “the extra investment we have announced on schools, hospitals, transport and the police." His answer infuriated the protestors, who complained bitterly about paying more to fund ambitious government spending plans when they had no alternative but to drive. A few months later and the escalator was history.

This is the core of the green tax / stealth tax dilemma. At present all the cash from green taxes goes into a big Treasury melting pot, to be spent on road building, wars, the NHS and the John Lewis list. Some of this goes on public transport, but there’s no direct link: taxing “bads” doesn’t makes “goods” any cheaper. Drivers complain of being over a barrel with no alternative but to drive everywhere and pay through the nose for the privilege.

For green taxes to work they have to be hypothecated – ring-fenced for spending on alternatives. It’s a simple enough idea: if you choose to drive to work everyday, your taxes will make someone taking public transport’s life easier. The extra cash makes all the difference: propping up rural buses that would otherwise go broke; giving cycle training to help people pedal along confidently.

There are plenty of good transport causes crying out for extra cash, but what’s important is that motorists see that their taxes fund alternatives. To be popular, green taxes have to be transparent. Brown must take this opportunity to link motoring taxation to public transport spending. Short-term squabbles over 2p can’t solve this problem.

22 May: Crossing the Thames could get an alpine makeover, as plans for a costly road bridge were sent packing yesterday. Great news – Campaign for Better Transport and other NGOs have been fighting long and hard because the bridge would have dramatically increased traffic, pollution and CO2 emissions.

Last year’s public inquiry backed us up, when the Inspector decided that the Thames Gateway Bridge was a truly dumb idea. The Government over-ruled him – what cheek! – and called for another inquiry with a new Inspector! But London’s Mayor Boris Johnson told the London Assembly that he wouldn’t support the TGB in its present form or location, stopping the road scheme in its tracks.

The onus is now on Transport for London to come up with some imaginative solutions. Fortunately options are at hand: a new report from Professors Whitelegg, Goodwin and Hass-Klau, funded by TfL in a deal with the Green Party, recommends ferries, rail bridges, a walk/cycle/public transport bridge and particularly favours an alpine-style cable car. This last choice, hailed as the greenest option, could see 5,000 people an hour whizzing each way over the river.

Whatever TfL decides, one thing is clear. The old road bridge, a six lane monster sending thousands of cars roaring through some of the most deprived boroughs in East London, was the worst of all worlds. People need to cross the river, but a mega-motorway bridge is not the answer. I'm loving the new cable car idea. Apres-ski, anyone?

20 May: With oil prices rising and daily articles in the red-tops about skyrocketing motoring taxes, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it had never been more expensive to drive. Forgiven, but wrong: according to government figures released yesterday, the cost of motoring has fallen by 4 percent in the last three years.

That might come as a surprise, but helpfully the bean counters have broken that figure down for us. Unsurprisingly fuel costs are up: 21% between January 2005 and April 2008, but the hidden costs, such as insurance and taxes, fell by 6%. But the biggest saving comes from buying a car: forecourt prices fell by 20%, potentially saving drivers thousands of pounds in one go.

So if the ‘real’ cost of driving is falling, why does everyone think it’s so expensive? The answer is simple: the daily costs are up, while the yearly costs are down. Every time we go to the pump, it seems like we’re paying more than last time, but this is cancelled out by cheaper insurance and taxes. We don’t notice that our annual bills are cheaper because these costs get paid monthly, defraying the savings over the year – and unless you’re Jay Kay, you won’t buy a car more than once every three or four years, so you’re even less likely to notice the saving.

Anyway, it’s a useful statistic to receive in my first week on the job. Cost of motoring falling, cost of public transport rising: looks like I’ll have to work closely with our public transport campaigner, Cat, to try and turn things around.

16 May: I have been asking the Highways Agency to publish data on the carbon impact of all their road schemes for over a year. They had promised that it would be completed by March this year, but I have just heard that it has now been delayed until ‘the Summer’. So much for climate change being a priority!

I asked the HA to publish this data back in February 2007, as they shockingly did not appear to have any idea of the accumulative carbon impact of their roads programme. They said that they would be published over a year later in March 2008. However a Parliamentary Question by Norman Baker MP showed that this information is now delayed until Summer.

You can be sure that Campaign for Better Transport will ensure the Highways Agency come clean on how much extra carbon emissions the roads programme will produce. I am going on maternity leave, but Richard George who is covering for me sees this as a top priority and will be making sure the Highways Agency deliver on its promises, and prioritises climate change.

8 May: I’ve just heard that today the Connect Plus consortium have been awarded the huge £5bn PFI contract to widen and maintain 63 miles of the M25 for 30 years. The consortium includes Balfour Beatty and Atkins, both of whom are in the Metronet consortium who messed up the London Underground, and went into administration last year!

Not only that but Balfour Beatty are currently under investigation by the Office of Fair Trading in a massive construction industry price fixing inquiry. The award of this contract demonstrates appalling judgment by the Highways Agency and DfT.

Our campaigning has resulted in 2 of the 4 widening contracts being scrapped in favour of using the hard shoulder instead (see my blog of 8 April). The DfT could have cancelled the PFI contract, scrapped the widening for all 4 contracts and gone ahead with 50mph hard shoulder running. We estimate this could have saved the taxpayer about £4,500 million. A Parliamentary Question by Norman Baker MP in April revealed that if the DfT had not gone ahead with awarding the PFI contract there would have been no financial penalty.

Instead the DfT are pressing ahead with expensive widening for 2 of the contracts, raising carbon emissions, and handing over control of large chunks of the M25 to companies who have already mismanaged the London Underground.

Using the hard shoulder at 50mph on the M42 led to a 10% reduction in carbon emissions. It also costs a quarter of the price of widening.

6 May: I have just heard that due to our campaigning finally the DfT will for the first time be openly publishing clear information on roads costs.

We have been pushing for almost a year now for the DfT to come clean on how much its road building programme costs (see blog of 18 March). Currently there is no information on the DfT website about its road programme, including how much it costs taxpayers or the carbon emissions it will create.

We asked Norman Baker MP to ask a Parliamentary Question on this, and last week he received the commitment from roads minister Tom Harris that the new road cost estimates WILL finally be published on the DfT and Highways Agency websites – this is an important first. However they now claim it will be published by ‘late Spring’, whereas they had previously pledged the re-costing would be complete by ‘the Spring’.

I also wrote to the Commons Transport Select Committee, asking it to push the DfT to be more transparent about roads costs. Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly’s response has been forwarded to me today. Kelly also pledges that the DfT will publish costs information on the Highways Agency roads programme, but also for Government funded local authority road schemes.

I was promised by the DfT in August 2007 that costs information of local road schemes would be openly published on the DfT website. However over eight months on there is still absolutely nothing on the DfT website even acknowledging they have a local roads programme, let alone how much it costs!

8 April: We’ve heard the DfT are about to let the enormous +£5 billion M25 PFI contract. This would be an economic and environmental disaster.

The Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) contract was originally to widen and maintain for 30 years four sections of the M25 totalling 63 miles. The contract is estimated to be worth over £5 billion – a debt that would be paid by future generations over the next 30 years.

However, due to our campaigning the DfT is now considering using the hard shoulder on 2 of the 4 sections, rather than widening. The DfT had previously ruled this out, but due to our pressure the Highways Agency’s recently published Business Plan 2008/9 now shows that hard shoulder running (ATM) is being considered on junctions 5-7 and 23-27.

Our research has shown that Highways Agency figures reveal that widening all 4 sections of the M25 would result in an additional 114, 714 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. A pilot of hard shoulder running at 50mph on the M42 reduced carbon emissions by 10%, and is a fraction of the cost of widening. However the DfT now propose to roll-out ATM at 60mph, which their research shows leads to an increase in emissions (see my blog of 3 April).

Ask transport secretary Ruth Kelly to drop the widening on all sections of the M25 and implement 50mph ATM instead.

The Highways Agency first invited bids for the M25 DBFO in Nov 2005. One of the 3 shortlisted consortia includes Balfour Beatty and Atkins, members of the Metronet consortium that ran a large chunk of the Tube network before collapsing into administration.

3 April: I’ve discovered that despite the success of the 50 mph M42 hard shoulder running pilot in reducing carbon emissions by 10%, the DfT’s study into rolling it out across the country only examined running it at 60mph, which would actually lead to an increase in emissions. This shows the DfT is more interested in speeding up traffic than tackling climate change.

This disappointing news was revealed in a Parliamentary Question by Norman Baker. He asked whether the DfT had examined the carbon impact of operating Active Traffic management (ATM) at 50 and 60mph.

Tom Harris, the roads minister, replied that “All traffic modelling… as part of the advanced motorway signalling and traffic management feasibility study was carried out on the basis of a 60 mph speed limit during operation of the hard shoulder as a running lane”, adding that “Following detailed safety assessment, hard shoulder running with a 60 mph speed limit is the standard to be adopted for future hard shoulder running schemes.”

DfT pushing 60mph, even though no one wants it
Another PQ shows that 60mph ATM would increase emissions by 300,000 tonnes a year. On 18 March the speed limit on the ATM stretch of the M42 was raised from 50mph to 60mph, wiping out the carbon-reduction benefits.

So the DfT trialled ATM at 50mph which reduced carbon emissions, but only examined running it at 60mph, undoing all that potential reduction in carbon emissions. It doesn’t make any sense to us, either!

The irony is that no one had been calling for the speed limit to be increased on the 50mph M42 pilot. Research by the Highways Agency had shown that 84% of people were ‘confident’ with the scheme.

But there is some good news
The DfT had previously refused to consider ATM for the £5billion M25 widening schemes. However our campaigning for 50mph ATM to be considered here has resulted in a partial victory, with two of the four contracts now being examined for ATM. Well done to all those who wrote in. For those who haven’t yet, please write to secretary Ruth Kelly and ask her to consider it for the other two stretches too.

27 March: Local campaigners in Flintshire in Wales have succeeded in stopping a £60 million 7-lane super highway by fighting a concerted campaign at the public inquiry last year.

Local campaigners from the Aston Hill Says No coalition campaign put up a strong case at the inquiry, and the inspector agreed with them that the A494 Drome Corner to Ewloe scheme was too large, and recommended against it. Welsh Assembly Government transport minister Ieuan Wyn Jones also agreed and scrapped the scheme today.

The huge scheme would have required 50 homes to be demolished and would have been part of a trans-European route linking English motorways with the A55 through north Wales to Holyhead port – at the expense of local communities.

26 March: A local resident in Lancaster has lodged a legal challenge to Hazel Blears’s decision to grant planning permission for the Heysham to M6 Link Road.

Ms Blears, the planning minister, allowed the planning permission after a public inquiry (see blog of 8 Feb). The resident argues that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the scheme was defective, and that there was no EIA for a park and ride scheme the council tagged on to the road.

The legal action is being supported by the brilliant local campaign group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecombe.

18 March: I have discovered ministers have secretly approved over £1 billion in cost increases for road schemes in just one year. No wonder they have been trying to keep this secret from us for so long.

I have been asking the Department for Transport (DfT) to reveal the latest ministerially approved costs of road schemes since July 2007 (see also my blogs of 17 Jan and 15 Nov). It took three Parliamentary Questions from Norman Baker MP before we finally got the information requested. So much for open Government!

2 July 2007 – I write to DfT using Freedom of Information legislation requesting the latest ministerially approved costs be published on DfT website
30 Aug – reply from DfT, but does not reveal the latest costs
15 Oct – I write again using FOI legislation asking for latest ministerially approved costs
15 Nov – DfT replies refusing to disclose
15 Nov – I appeal to DfT
14 Dec – promised a reply by DfT to the appeal by 21 Dec, to date no reply
3 Jan 2008 – I write again asking for the latest costs, to date no reply
4 Feb – Parliamentary Question by Norman Baker MP asking for latest ministerially approved costs. Costs not revealed
18 Feb – another PQ by Norman Baker MP asking for costs, still not answered
20 Feb – I appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office
6 March – Costs finally revealed in PQ by Norman Baker MP

The latest ministerially approved costs were revealed to Norman Baker MP in a PQ of 6 March. Campaign for Better Transport then compared these latest costs with the last approved costs in the March 2007 Nichols report.

I found that in just one year, seven schemes had cost increases approved by ministers totalling £1.149 billion. This comes as the DfT claims that it is trying to get to grips with the massive cost increases exposed in the highly critical National Audit Office and Nichols reports of March 2007. We have since found out they have actually been rubber stamping yet more massive cost increases.

Read our press release and a report in the today's Guardian.

4 March: Just got back from a meeting with Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly in which she explained her plans to open up the hard shoulder on many parts of motorways. If done right -- that is, with 50mph limits on all lanes -- increasing capacity this way can be a great short-term alternative to buidling new and widened roads and motorways, though it doesn't tackle the big problem of rising traffic levels.

Ruth Kelly specifically mentioned that the M1, M6 and M62 could be great candidates for hard-shoulder running -- which would mean the current proposals to widen these motorways would be scrapped. In these case, hard-shoulder running is a great victory for the environment.

2 March: It looks like we've been able to convince Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly to go ahead with hard-shoulder running on some motorways, eliminating the need for massively damaging and expensive widening projects.

She's making a big announcement about hard-shoulder running later this week. Her announcement comes after months of lobbying from us, most recently with a formal submission (213K PDF) to the Government.

A recent trial on the M42 showed that hard shoulder running - or 'active traffic management' - can be a great alternative to motorway widening. When the hard shoulder is opened to cars during peak times and all lanes run at 50mph, the result is less pollution, fewer accidents and lower carbon emissions, as well as much more predictable journey times.

Ruth Kelly still isn't sure the hard shoulder of the M25 should be used in this way. Please email her today and convince her otherwise.

Opening up the hard shoulder is better than widening motorways but is not a long-term solution because it doesn't cut traffic levels. We'll continue to push the Government to commit to reducing traffic.

29 February: The Government has asked us to comment on the £130 million business case for Devon County Council’s South Devon Link Road (Kingskerswell Bypass). We found that alternatives had not been examined; the road increases traffic and carbon emissions and damages habitats of endangered species and historic sites.

The Government requires every council to prove a thorough analysis of alternative non-road building options, yet the council’s 'alternatives' are two other road schemes! They admit they only looked at alternatives in the dark-ages of 2000, with their consultants rejecting improvements to the existing road, demand management and getting people to use public transport more outright, with no further analysis!

The council also admit the road will increase traffic and carbon emissions, at a time when we must do all we can to reduce them. The road also destroys the habitats of internationally important species such as the Cirl Bunting bird, and the Lesser Horseshoe bat. We have called on the Government to reject this £130 million bid for funding.

Yesterday the local group, the Kingskerswell Alliance, met with the Department for Transport to put their case against the road. They have conducted a thorough analysis of the business case as well, and employed consultants to evaluate the modelling and scheme economics.

22 February: The White Horse Alliance against the Westbury Bypass in Wiltshire have won a key battle to get their public inquiry postponed.

The inquiry start date had been set at the convenience of roadbuilders Wiltshire County Council, without consultation with the Alliance, whose expert witnesses were already booked up.  Earth Rights Solicitors, acting for the Aliance, stated that this was unfair. The Government's Treasury Solicitors agreed and have cancelled the inquiry date. A new date will be set next month, with agreement of the council and objectors.

18 February: Spent the weekend at my parents' home near the site of my first anti-road campaign, Twyford Down in Hampshire, which the infamous M3 motorway destroyed in the 1990s. Why was this road allowed to go ahead, and why are we still building destructive, carbon-producing roads? The answer to this question lies in the Government's flawed appraisal framework. Roads are built because of unfair cost-benefit analysis which values perceived economic benefits over the environment, making bad transport projects seem good.

Today we published some research (PDF, 368K) that makes a few suggestions for how this assessment process could be improved.

14 February: The Scottish Executive gave the go-ahead today to the £650m M74 extension in Glasgow. At just 5 miles long, this is £130 million a mile – the most expensive road per mile in Britain.

Read more about today's news

Only one consortium had bid for the contract, in breach of EU competition laws according to Green Party MSPs. A complaint had been lodged at the EC, and Scottish ministers said only last week they would review the procurement process as a result of the complaint. It now looks as if the review will not happen.

In 2005 a public inquiry Inspector ruled completely against the scheme saying it would not regenerate the area or the economy, and would just create more pollution and carbon emissions. Despite his verdict the Scottish Executive are still ploughing on, even though the costs have gone through the roof.

Work is planned to start in May, although direct action has been threatened as there is so much local opposition to the scheme.

12 February: An article in the Daily Mail today shows how our work to reveal the huge cost of road building is having an effect. Costs have gone through the roof with many schemes now facing the axe.

The article reveals our research that some roads can cost as much as £100 million a mile. Many of the most expensive roads are the large motorway widening schemes, and as an alternative we are arguing the Government should consider Active Traffic Management (hard shoulder running) instead which is cheaper, and reduces accidents and carbon emissions.

We have been raising the rapidly escalating cost of road building for three years, which resulted in an inquiry by the National Audit Office in March 07 and the Nichols review (an internal review for the DfT). As a result of the Nichols review the DfT asked the Highways Agency to review the costs of all schemes in its programme. The results will be published in the next few weeks, and as I reported in my blog of 1 Feb, Ruth Kelly is sharpening her axe.

We recommend the M1, the M25, the A14 and the Mottram Tintwistle Bypass should be top of her pile. That would save the taxpayer about £11 billion!

8 February: Today the Government approved planning permission for the controversial Heysham to M6 Link Road, after a public inquiry last year. They said that perceived economic benefits outweighed all the environmental harm, including a massive increase in carbon emissions.

The road links the port of Heysham to the M6, but goes through local communities and Green Belt. The local campaign group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecombe put up a well-organised, strong fight at the public inquiry, arguing that the road would lead to a massive 23,500 tonne a year increase in carbon emissions and wouldn’t solve local transport problems. Instead the group argued for sustainable transport measures to offer travel choices.

However the decision letter from Planning Minister Hazel Blears said that all the environmental costs were not as important as the perceived economic benefits. (Perhaps it's time for the Government to rethink its cost-benefit analysis.)

Although disappointing, this is not the end of the battle because the Department for Transport has still not awarded Lancashire County Council the £118 million funding needed for the road. The TSLM group has submitted a detailed critique of the council’s Business Case to the department, saying the council's claims for the scheme do not add up.

1 February: Ruth Kelly has just appeared before the House of Commons Transport Select Committee saying that some Highways Agency road schemes could be axed due to cost escalation.

Due to last year’s Nichols review of cost escalation of HA road schemes, a major review of costs has been undertaken. Some early results show some massive increases. Kelly’s comments to the Committee are very welcome. They show the DfT is no longer willing to tolerate these rising costs. We shall be recommending key schemes for the Government to scrap.

Ruth Kelly told the committee "Over the next couple of months I will be taking a firm view of what roads are being prioritised. It's absolutely the case there are tough choices to be made. We will have to look right across the roads programme to see what is desirable. What we need to do is have a rigorous look at the figures and be clear about what we can afford and what we cannot afford… I hope to be in a position in the next few months to make a definitive statement about where we are on cost and which roads we are committed to seeing delivered".

If road schemes are cut it is vital that the money saved should be invested in sustainable alternatives, such as improving public transport, to give people real travel choices (for example, George Monbiot recently wrote about how coaches could reduce the need for cars).

The DfT recently asked the south east regional transport board whether they were still prepared to support three HA schemes which had come out way over budget after having their costs reviewed. One scheme - A21 Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst - had increased from £40m to £103m, an increase of over 150%. The board have yet to make a decision. All the other regions will be facing similar choices soon - whether to blow more money on expensive road schemes, or support vitally needed public transport schemes.

17 January: I am having real trouble getting the DfT and the Highways Agency to reveal how much road building is costing the country in money and extra carbon emissions. What have they got to hide?

Today I received a reply from the Highways Agency saying they are refusing to publish the latest ministerially approved costs of road schemes I had requested, as this would "not be helpful,in the wider public interest"!

I have also been writing to the DfT asking them to openly publish information about their roads programmes on their website. Astonishingly there is absolutely no information about the Government's £13 billion roads programmes on their entire website! I have asked for both the costs and the carbon impact to be made public, but so far all I have had is excuses, refusals and missed deadlines.

The Government are spending £13 billion of our taxpayer's money, yet are refusing to tell us what they are doing with it. Last year the rising cost of roads was highlighted in the National Audit Office and Nichols reports, which revealed an average of 30% cost escalation.

By examining hundreds of dense tables provided by the Highways Agency I have calculated the Highways Agency road schemes combined will create an additional 752,100 tonnes of CO2 a year due to increased traffic. This is equivalent to over six million passengers flying to Paris and back. No wonder the DfT are trying to cover up this embarrassing information. I hope you are as appalled at this as I am.

I have copied all the correspondence to Gwyneth Dunwoody MP, the formidable Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, who has written to the Secretary of State for Transport asking her for a response.

20 December: Today I learned the Government announced the go-ahead for a new £76.8 million dual carriageway in Warwickshire that has increased in cost by 35%, and costs a staggering £43 million a mile.

The scheme is the A46/M40 Junction 15 Longbridge Bypass, a 1.8 mile long dual carriageway in Warwickshire. £43 million a mile, or £679 an inch, is extremely expensive for a dual carriageway. It was originally approved in 2003 at £57m, but costs have now leapt up to £76.8m.

The Government have been approving a flurry of over-budget road schemes recently (see my blogs of 22 and 23 November). When tram schemes have modest cost increases the Government pulls the plug on them, yet road scheme cost increases are routinely approved.

Recently the Department for Transport refused to disclose to me the latest ministerially approved costs of schemes in the roads programme (see my blog of 15 November). It is no wonder they are trying to hide these embarrassing cost increases. I am appealing their decision.

16 December: The low turnout for the fuel ‘protests’ yesterday was even lower than we predicted, as has happened in previous years. We hope the media will finally realise what paper tigers the protesters are, and how their arguments are misguided.

Many of the protests had to be called off as no one turned up. The largest protest was at Fawley in Southampton where only 25 showed up, but in Purfleet only one person showed. Only eight went to Ellesmere Port refinery, and the demonstration was later abandoned. This reflects previous years' protests which attracted disproportionate media attention, whilst failing to deliver numbers or public support (see old news articles in the Daily Mail and the BBC, for example).

The truth is that the Government has bent over backwards to keep motoring cheap. It has not raised fuel duty inline with inflation since 2000. The small 2p increase on fuel duty this year, and the 2p increase in April 2008 are simply inflation-linked increases. Since 1997 the price of motoring in real terms has decreased by 10%, whilst public transport costs have gone up. By allowing motoring to become artificially cheap traffic and road transport emissions have risen under this Government, and we are failing to reach our climate change targets.

13 December: With fuel protests threatened for Saturday 15 December, it is time to correct some myths…

A splinter group of hauliers and farmers is threatening to protest at oil refineries on Saturday to demonstrate against "high fuel tax". Campaign for Better Transport has produced a factsheet which dispels a few of the myths surrounding fuel taxation. Climate change is the real crisis and high fuel prices will increasingly become a fact of life.

The factsheet reveals that:

• Fuel duty has not been increasing in line with inflation since 2000, with the small increase in Oct 2007 the first in years
• Tax, as a percentage of fuel, has not been this low since 1993
• Higher fuel prices are down to high oil prices not because of fuel duty
• The real cost of motoring has fallen in the past decade, while the cost of taking public transport has increased

And more...

5 December: I’ve just heard that Shropshire County Council have ditched plans for a road pricing scheme which included the very controversial Shrewsbury Relief Road as it would not be cost effective. However the council have happily admitted that the pump priming funding given to them by the Government to develop the road pricing bid has allowed them to “progress rapidly” plans for the road scheme…

Campaign for Better Transport has been raising concerns for some time that local councils were applying for Government funding to develop Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bids for road pricing schemes but with no intention of implementing road pricing. Instead the councils use Government cash to pay consultants to work up road schemes they would otherwise have no funding for.

There are other councils around the country who are using TIF cash to develop plans for old road schemes, such as Durham County Council with their northern relief road, and Norwich County Council who are desperate for their northern distributor road.

The government, and the tax payer, have been taken for a ride by councils pretending to be interested in road pricing, who are really interested in pushing old road schemes. In March we submitted evidence to the Transport Select Committee warning them this was going on.

30 November: Yesterday, locals trying to stop the very damaging proposed Kingskerswell Bypass in Devon witnessed just how shabby regional decision-making can be -- when a £27 million cost increase on the road was waved through.

The regional transport board, which did the rubber-stamping, failed to question any of the road's claimed benefits, or even ask for evidence, and it did not allow local people sufficient time to present their case against the road.

Read more.

23 November: Just this week the Government has agreed to award funding to two local road schemes which have gone massively over budget – by 181% and 102%. Whilst tram schemes are shelved by the Government for modest cost increases, over-budget road schemes are almost always approved.

Today the Government announced it will award £70 million towards the £80 million A1073 Spalding to Eye road which has increased in cost by 181%! The scheme is being jointly developed by Lincolnshire County Council and Peterborough City Council. When the government first approved it in December 2000 they agreed to only fund £24.8 million.

Yesterday the Government announced it was approving a 102% cost increase in the Hemsworth to A1 Link Road in Yorkshire, from £11.26m up to £22.8m. Read my blog below about this scheme.

The Hemsworth to A1 Link Road was given the final go-ahead by the Government, despite the costs increasing more than 100%.

The scheme had been provisionally approved by the Department for Transport at just £11.261 million in December 2000. Now today the Government is giving away £22.8 million to Wakefield Council.

Whilst road cost increases are always waved through, the Government has cancelled tram schemes around the country for going over budget, when those cost increases were very modest in comparison to road schemes. Campaign for Better Transport says that the Government should be more prepared to pull the plug on over-budget road schemes.

15 November: The Department for Transport has today refused to tell me how much ministers have decided to spend on road building.

I wrote to the Department for Transport using the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, which are tougher than the Freedom of Information Act. I asked for the cost of all the road schemes when they were first approved, what the latest ministerially approved cost is, and what the latest cost estimate is.

However using an exemption spuriously, officers at the department have refused to disclose how much ministers have allocated to road building, despite them spending our taxpayers' money! Needless to say I have immediately appealed against the decision.

I am appalled the DfT is trying to hide from the public how much is being wasted on road building. It makes you ask, what have they got to hide? Earlier this year the National Audit Office revealed that road costs were increasing on average by 30% from when they were first approved, and the trend was upwards.

A great buzz was created on 27 Oct when 70 local roads campaigners all met up for our national road campaigners conference, coming from as far afield as Cornwall and Lancashire. The day was kicked off brilliantly by author George Monbiot who reminded us how important it was to end road building if we are to urgently cut carbon emissions.

Groups met to share campaign ideas and expertise in opposing road schemes. We learned how to communicate messages effectively and how to win arguments.

Thanks to all who came and made the day such a great success.

5 November: The French environment minister Jean-Louis Borloo has just announced that France will stop building roads, to tackle climate change. As Britain claims to be a ‘global leader’ on tackling climate change, we are asking when will the British Government really take the lead and stop building and widening roads and expanding airports?

This announcement follows hot on the heels of the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, making a similar commitment on 25 Oct at the Grenelle environmental conference.

Jean-Louis Borloo said “For 30 years, we’ve built a lot of roads and a lot of highways. That’s over. Our road capacity is not going to increase further.”

Meanwhile last week the British government produced its “Towards a Sustainable Transport System: Supporting Economic Growth in a Low Carbon World” strategy which committed the Government to yet more road building and airport expansion.

Our press release

2 November 2007: The Government has just published its annual Transport Statistics for Great Britain. Unfortunately it reveals rising traffic growth and carbon emissions, with increasing numbers of vehicles, with vehicle efficiency barely changing.

The number of kilometres travelled each year by all the vehicles on our roads has increased by an extra 7 billion kilometres between 2005-6.

There are also an extra 592,000 vehicles registered compared to 2004/5.

Unsurprisingly domestic transport CO2 emissions are up by another 1.3 million tonnes between 2004 and 2005. Road transport makes up 93 per cent of all transport emissions.

The Government claims that it will tackle rising road transport emissions by improving vehicle efficiency. However emissions from cars have barely changed for years as the voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to reduce emissions have clearly failed, with this year being no exception.

Instead we see the Government encouraging more traffic growth by ploughing billions of pounds into road building, rather than investing in the proven sustainable alternatives. It is no wonder we have rising transport emissions.