Sustrans is the charity making it easier for people to walk and cycle. We connect people and places, create liveable neighbourhoods, transform the school run and deliver a happier, healthier commute. Sustrans works in partnership, bringing people together to find the right solutions. We make the case for walking and cycling by using robust evidence and showing what can be done. We are grounded in communities and believe that grassroots support combined with political leadership drives real change, fast.
We are pleased to respond to the Transport Committee’s call for evidence on strategic road investment.
— The Government’s road investment strategies are not good value for money. They are also at odds with the UK climate change commitments and policy priorities of decarbonisation and levelling up left behind areas.
— Building new roads induces demand to drive, creates more congestion, encourages urban sprawl and too often locks communities into car dependency.
— The UK Government needs to introduce traffic reduction targets and measures to meet these, following the example of Wales and Scotland. Investment through RIS 3 should align with this approach.
— This means ensuring the current strategic road network is well maintained, and meets the needs of all users regardless of their mode of transport, should be prioritised over expanding it.
— RIS3 should contain a commitment to address the environmental, safety and community severance problems caused by existing motorways, trunk roads, their junctions and lack of crossing points.
— Monitoring arrangements are needed to assess the effectiveness of work to improve provision and safety on the strategic road network for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.
— Investment across surface transport should be reallocated from expanding the road network towards transport infrastructure which makes it easier for people to walk, wheel, cycle and use public transport. A Public Transport Investment Strategy should also be developed alongside the Road Investment Strategy and the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy.
The scale of the Government’s Road Investment Strategy 2 (RIS 2) and its focus on new road building was not justified and not value for money. Greater investment in walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure would have aligned more closely with the Government’s legal climate targets and had greater benefits for economic inclusion, regeneration, health, safety, air quality and the climate.
The average benefit cost ratio (BCR) for walking and cycling projects is 13:1 [1], significantly higher than motorway upgrades and bypasses which are estimated to typically have lower BCRs of 5:3 and 2:4 respectively [2].
The RIS 2 progress report itself notes “collectively, the existing projects that will be delivered during the third road strategy have a lower value-for-money profile than National Highways and DfT would typically aim for” and that 76% of projects that will run into the forthcoming RIS 3 are designated as low or poor value.
The Government’s Road Investment Strategy also ignores most roads and journeys in England. Roads covered by RIS 2 investment made up just 3% of all roads in England and approximately 34% of vehicle miles. The other 97% include almost all major and minor roads in our cities and towns. Whilst some funding was made available for local roads, for example through pothole funding, other roads are vastly underfunded in comparison.
Building new roads encourages more people to drive. This can cancel out any progress in encouraging walking, cycling and public transport by acting to make driving more attractive. It is no wonder cycling modal share has remained at 2% for the past 40 years in England despite investment, when this is dwarfed by spending on increasing road capacity.
Analysis of road schemes by CPRE, the countryside charity, shows that road building increases traffic by up to 47%, over and above background traffic growth [3]. Increased demand inevitably creates additional congestion elsewhere at the next bottleneck and has a negative impact on growth and productivity.
Most journeys on the Strategic Road Network start and finish in urban areas. Congestion is getting worse in UK cities and costs the economy £6.9 billion per year [4]. According to the British Chamber of Commerce congestion costs each individual business approximately £17,000 a year [5]. Reallocating investment to ensure more people can walk, cycle and use public transport on the strategic road network would reduce congestion for businesses and people making journeys where sustainable modes are not an option.
We support Transport Focus’ recommendation that RIS 3 should require National Highways to work with transport companies and councils to identify locations for new or expanded park and ride sites, to encourage more motorists to use park and ride for part of their journeys. This would also support the Government’s transport decarbonisation targets and reduce congestion on the strategic road network and in cities and towns.
The increase in home working following the COVID-19 pandemic has reduced demand for travel on the Strategic Road Network. Although DfT has partly acknowledged “[t]here is considerable uncertainty around future travel demand” [6], we are concerned the decision-making process for road investment doesn’t consider uncertainty about future demand. We support the Road Investment Scrutiny Panel’s recommendation that investment decisions should be tested “against a wide range of plausible scenarios … including those that involve reductions in traffic volumes and step changes in sustainable and active travel.” [7]
Road transport still makes up 27% of emissions and RIS 2 did nothing to tackle this. RIS 3 must meet the UK’s overarching legal requirement for decarbonisation and we support the Road Investment Scrutiny Panel’s recommendation that the government consider:
In England, unlike Wales and Scotland, no vision or transport strategy exists that ensures nationally we are investing in the right transport mix for people, business and society. This would guide RIS 3 and funding for other transport modes to meet the challenges and opportunities we face now and in the future. This would include meeting our legal challenges for Net Zero, reducing air pollution, helping increase equity in transport and supporting business needs.
The UK Government should introduce traffic reduction targets and measures to meet these. It should also favour transport modes that reduce congestion and are more accessible: many people in lower income groups do not own a car or cannot afford to run a car, especially during the cost-of-living crisis.
Transport investment should be reallocated from expanding the road network towards transport infrastructure which makes it easier for people to walk, wheel, cycle and use public transport. The Government should introduce a Public Transport Investment Strategy alongside the Roads and Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies to ensure funding aligns better with policy goals.
The Government’s roads investment strategies do not provide the infrastructure that communities need. They risk locking people into a car-dependent future for generations to come. The focus on building new roads encourages urban sprawl, makes public transport services harder to provide and leads to communities where everyday destinations like work, shops and schools are too far to walk, wheel or cycle.
Instead, there should be more of a focus on ‘vision and validate’ principles where developments are designed around people, at higher densities, with the services they need within shorter distances that can be reached by walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport. Following these principles will remove the need to build many roads and new motorway junctions in the first place.
The Government’s roads investment programme should meet the needs of people using or interacting with the strategic road network for journeys by public transport, cycling, walking and wheeling. Doing so will directly meet the Government’s and National Highways’ objectives to increase active travel, maximising its health, environmental and other benefits.
National Highways should continue its work and increase funding to improve the safety and experience of cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians crossing the strategic road network. This should include investing in small-scale enhancements to eliminate locations where, because public rights of way are not directly opposite each other, it is necessary to venture into the carriageway for a short distance.
RIS 2 contained a long-term vision that cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians should be able to make their journeys on the strategic road network segregated from motorised traffic. This approach should be restated in RIS 3 with a commitment to address the environmental, safety and community severance problems caused by existing motorways, trunk roads and their junctions – particularly when combined with a lack of crossing points.
We also share concerns with others in the walking, wheeling and cycling sector that there is a lack of investment in indicators or monitoring systems to assess whether investment in the strategic road network has improved provision for non-motorised road users.
A lack of data on non-motorised users travelling on the strategic road network means it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of safety improvements. We want to see evidence from DfT and National Highways that any investment in walking, cycling or equestrian provision on the strategic road network has been successful and cost effective.
A reliable, well-maintained strategic road network, that meets the needs of all users regardless of their mode of transport, should be prioritised over expanding it. A recent report by Transport Focus backs this up: two thirds (65%) of car and van drivers place greater importance on the maintenance of existing roads [9].
Greater investment for walking and cycling is also popular with the public. The Walking and Cycling Index found 56% of residents wanted more funding on walking and 53% on cycling in 2021. This compares to only 32% who wanted more funding for roads and driving [10].
Reallocating investment from expanding the road network towards transport infrastructure which makes it easier for people to walk, cycle and use public transport aligns much more closely with the Government’s policy priorities of decarbonisation, levelling up and reducing transport poverty by improving mobility for the many people who don’t drive.
The Government’s road investment strategies do not support levelling up left behind communities. Disproportionately investing in roads at the expense of funding public and active transport puts the social and economic inclusion of non-motorists at risk. 22% of households do not have access to a car or van, and this disproportionately includes those on low-income, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and jobseekers [11].
Sustrans' Walking and Cycling Index, which surveys 17 urban areas across the UK and Ireland, found 45% of people on low incomes did not own a car across the 17 urban areas studied [12]. Many people in left behind communities have limited transport options and employment opportunities, public transport is often expensive and sparse, and roads are too dangerous or inaccessible to walk, wheel or cycle.
Adequately funding public and active transport complements wider policy priorities by enhancing economic inclusion and reducing car-demand which, in turn, supports health, safety and environmental targets.
Young people aged 16-24 years are also much less likely to have access to a car and rely on public transport than all older age groups [13]. This age-group are also less likely to drive than previous generations [14] and a lack of suitable alternatives to the car is a well-cited barrier for young people accessing education and employment. This has both immediate and long-term impacts on their economic and health outcomes [15].
People living in the north of England are more likely to rely on public transport than those living in the south [16], suggesting that an increase in funding for public transport will particularly benefit these communities.
In Scotland, steps have already been taken to direct transport funding so that it supports wider priorities of equality, inclusive economic growth, decarbonisation, health and wellbeing. A national Young Persons’ Free Bus Travel Scheme was introduced in 2022 to improve education and employment outcomes, reduce childhood poverty and inequalities, and reduce car dominance by embedding bus travel as the default choice for young people as they move into adulthood [17].
There is a disconnect between the Government’s priorities of decarbonisation and the road investment programme’s focus on increasing road capacity for motor vehicles. Building new roads drives demand for car use and increases carbon emissions. To meet our legal obligations in the Climate Change Act we must reduce the building of new, or widening existing, roads.
We share the concerns detailed in the Climate Change Committee’s 2022 report to Parliament that – to be compatible with Net Zero – the Government should not be encouraging unconstrained traffic growth with its road building plans [18]. We also support the committee’s recommendation that DfT and National Highways must “rigorously assess the emissions impacts” of its road investment programme and “thoroughly consider alternative approaches”.
A new road has an environmental impact long after construction and this should be modelled, measured and taken into account in decision-making for road investment. Recent research from Transport for Quality of Life detailed how, between 2022 and 2032, RIS 2 will add 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to UK emissions when emissions need to be cut by 167 million tonnes to meet climate targets [19].
The scope of the environmental impacts outcome in RIS 3 should go beyond limiting the effect of new roadbuilding and be reviewed against the Government’s legal obligation to achieve Net Zero. The long-term effects of new road schemes must be considered and the environmental impacts outcome should be widened from areas in National Highways’ control but also under their influence, for example induced road trips.
Investing in strategic roads and road building will only increase the onstruction of many new housing developments built around the car with residents unable to travel unless they use a car. This is entirely at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework, which aims to ensure we build the right homes in the right places and protect our environment.
Ongoing investment in the strategic road network and the focus on road building in RIS 3 will increase carbon emissions and not help the Government meet its legal and moral obligation to decarbonise. Investment should instead focus on road maintenance and addressing community severance by reallocating funds to sustainable modes to make it easier for everyone to walk, cycle or use public transport for more journeys; this would ensure a closer alignment with government priorities of decarbonisation, levelling up, productivity and growth.
References
[1] Davis, A. Value for Money: An Economic Assessment of Investment in Walking and Cycling, Bristol City Council and NHS Bristol (2010)
[2] Highways England. Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) of Major Schemes (2015)
[3] Sloman L, Hopkinson L and Taylor I. The impact of road projects in England, Transport Quality for Life (2017)
[4] INRIX. Congestion cost UK economy £6.9 billion in 2019 (2020)
[5] British Chambers of Commerce. The Congestion Question (2008)
[6] Department for Transport. National road traffic projections (2022)
[7] and [8] Road Investment Scrutiny Panel. Key questions for road investment and spending, University of the West of England: Rees Jeffreys Road Fund (2023)
[9] Transport Focus. Putting users at the heart of Road Investment Strategy 3 (2022)
[10] Sustrans. Walking and Cycling Index UK aggregated report 2021 (2022)
[11] Department for Transport. National Travel Survey 2021 (2022)
[12] Sustrans. Walking and Cycling Index UK aggregated report 2021 (2022)
[13] Chatterjee, K. et al. Access to Transport and Life Opportunities, Department for Transport (2019)
[14] Chatterjee, K. et al. Young People’s Travel – What’s Changed and Why? Review and Analysis. Report to Department for Transport, UWE Bristol (2018)
[15] Chatterjee, K., et al. The Role of Transport in Supporting a Healthy Future for Young People, Sustrans and UWE Bristol (2019)
[16] Urban Transport Group. Back the Bus to Level Up: The case for bus revenue funding and reform of how it is provided (2021)
[17] Collings, S. et al. Fair Bus Fares for Young People: A policy briefing assessing bus fare support for young people across the UK, UWE Bristol and Sustrans (2022)
[18] Climate Change Committee. Progress in reducing emissions: 2022 report to parliament (2022)
[19] Sloman, L and Hopkinson, L. The carbon impact of the national roads programme, Transport Quality for Life (2020)
February 2023