Opposing RIS2 is not climate action

A group called Transport Action Network have taken the Government to judicial review to stop Road Investment Strategy (RIS2) from happening (they lost). Sadly, their approach does not appear about better outcomes but instead, shrouded in anti-car sentiment. This is a real shame as RIS2 offers a unique opportunity to change the Governments direction on road building and ensure public and active travel, as well as future connectivity are front and centre of how we invest in roads.

To consider how this could be conceived, it is worth exploring several RIS projects to understand where they are succeeding and where they are failing.

Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) – Growing rail

The LTC has been in the pipeline for more than a decade, with the initial scoping commencing in 2009. Several different solutions were proposed but passenger rail was decided as unlikely to provide value for money.
In 2021, with billions spent on HS2 and a climate emergency, this looks a very short-sighted decision.

Two rail stations straddle the proposed LTC. South of the River there is Higham and north of it, East Tilbury. Currently, a rail journey between the two would take either 1 hour 35minutes and four changes including a ferry, or 2 hours 35 minutes by with a change in central London.

As the crow flies, the distance between the two stations is just 6km and there are more than thirty stations planted within the immediate locality. For a river straddling Essex and Kent, both embracing growth potential and shifting some investment away from London, this separation of a public transport network is a major hindrance, not just for passengers but for regional and international freight coming through Dover and Folkstone, and even Harwich and Felixstowe.

A passenger and freight line opening up the growth opportunities between South East England and East England would also justify improvements to rail junctions, such as at Upminster, where to get to Romford, the East coast connecting line, you currently need to change trains.

Finally, the positive impact on the environment and climate is clear. Better rail connections reduce car and HGV dependency and increases multimodal transport.

It is blindingly obvious that the LTC needs rail and would prove a huge benefit for regional connectivity outside the capital. It is therefore folly and a poor use of taxpayer funding to not place rail, as well as bus connectivity and cycling, as vital components on this new river crossings.

A47 Blofield to North Burlingham - Cycling

This dual carriageway upgrade is being delivered to ease congestion and support economic development in the area. However, being only 7 miles from growing Norwich, it is a mistake to not add a segregated cycle lane to this road widening.

Norwich Cycling Campaign agreed, and many their supporters recommended the route did include a cycle lane, even citing the Governments ‘Gear Change’ policy, which encourages cycling infrastructure. Their recommendations fell on deaf ears, perhaps because the road is not within Norwich itself, yet this shouldn’t matter because every road should be built with cycling in mind, particularly those within touching distances of large cities.

Blofield and North Burlingham are within touching distance and both are experiencing growth by way of housing developments. Highways England also believes that employment growth is a major reason for the expansion, so why isn’t active travel at the heart of this?

Two other Highways England projects, the ‘A500 Etruria Widening’ and ‘A5 Dodwells to Longshoot Widening’ have included cycle lanes in their widening strategy and both have similar justifications for growth.

Any new road or widening must therefore consider whether cycle lanes are appropriate, particularly as e-bikes are increasingly popular, meaning trips such as 7 miles can be covered in just half an hour. Funding pressures will always mean retrofitting of cycle lanes to existing roads is complex, often because existing roads do not have the space to accommodate them and reducing vehicle lanes increases congestion and consequently, pollution. It is therefore vital to bake in active travel to new roads and upgrades.

Across RIS, there are several projects which would benefit from cycle lane additions, for example, the A27 in Sussex and when installed, they offer a different strategy for growth, which places active travel at the heart of planning strategies.

Some people may struggle to envision cycle lanes on more major roads but road building needs to be envisioned for tomorrows travel and growth, not necessarily todays. Other nations are doing just that and recognising the value in this approach.

M5 Junction 10 and Link Road (HIF) – Reopening closed rail lines

The Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) is government funding to improve infrastructure and encourage housing growth. It has been quite successful across England, for example at Castleward Urban Village in Derby and the ‘M5 Junction 10 and Link road’ which is north east of Cheltenham should be no different; with park and ride, new housing and greater employment opportunities justified because of it.

M5’s junction 10 sits between Cheltenham and Gloucester, two areas which have seen steady population growth in previous decades and in the case of Gloucester a 30% increase. The road improvements are therefore very welcomed, however, while the region has good public transport connectivity to major cities such as Birmingham, Bristol, and Cardiff, growing towns nearby such as Stratford upon Avon and Royal Leamington Spa have no direct rail routes.

This is frustrating because a historical rail line once connected Cheltenham to Coventry and passed through Stratford and Leamington. However, part of this line still operates privately and therefore should remain a candidate for investment and reopening.
The funding for the ‘M5 Junction 10 and Link Road’ could have included reference to this rail line and the potential of reopening for passengers. This would broaden the regions reach, reduce cap dependence and connect more than 300,000 people via public transport.

Conclusion

A default opposition to new and upgraded roads is unhealthy because it ignores why these roads were planned for in the first place. Research regarding ‘induced demand’ is used to oppose new roads as they ‘increase congestion’ but that research is often flawed as much of it comes from the United States, where public and active transport are poorly supported in planning strategy and physical infrastructure.

It is also flawed due to the language it uses. ‘Increasing congestion’ actually means, ‘meets unmet demand and increases opportunity’ but when framed this way, it opposes many induced demand positions. The better approach is recognising what each side wants. One wants more public transport the other wants demand for road space met. The solution is as exampled above; enable modal shift!

This means identifying whether new schemes should be designed to incorporate better mass transit like rail or buses. Enabling active travel opportunity, or at the very least a starting point to connect future schemes, especially as electric bikes and cycling in general is growing in popularity and requires segregated lanes. And considering how the growth of a region may take shape, to make the most of that, for example, if there is an opportunity for an urban extension to put a train station onto an existing line, freight or passenger, or reopen one.

More recent induced demand research has recognised this and is beginning to measure displaced traffic, emissions and journeys but unfortunately, due to the perspective the research starts from, this isn’t always the case. Yet better transport strategies demand it!