All Wales Road Projects Scrapped?

[Vierwielen]

What you are overlooking is that it is possible to reduce congestion (and hence the need to build new roads) by providing the means for some journeys currently made by private car, to instead be made by public transport or active travel. It is widely recognised that a significant proportion of road traffic (it varies by region of course) is created by journeys that could be walked or cycled in a relatively short period of time i.e. are less than 2-5 km. Even if 10% of that sub-set of short local journeys were removed from the network, congestion would reduce. The classic example is the school run, and the visible difference between term-time and school holiday congestion levels. You will always need fast private transport, I agree; but not for every journey currently made on the UK road network. To say that because some journeys are necessary, all therefore have to be, is misdirected logic.

The school run is an interesting case. I've seen it argued (even on this board) that the reason parents drive kids to school is because they're scared of them being hit by a car on route if they walk or cycle. I've never bought that; I think the concerns are more that 1) they're scared of them being abducted on route if they walk or cycle; and 2) they're scared of them skiving off if they're not watched from door to door like hawks. Factor in the potential of multiple children going to different schools some way apart, and having to get all of them to their various places of education and then get mum to work in time? The car almost invents itself. In 1988 an eight year old child (me) could walk nearly a mile to school virtually on their own (or with a couple of mates they met on the way). That just straight up wouldn't happen now.

This and commuting are I think two examples of road transport being a secondary cause of problems rather than the root cause. The root cause of transport demand growth is people needing to get places. By catchmenting kids into 2-3 different schools in 2-3 different localities, especially siblings of different ages, you make it harder for parents to find a solution to getting them there. A job market that almost always requires a person to live within a certain travelling time of work (less so with hybrid/home working but not completely disappeared by far) combined with a housing shortage in ALL in-demand areas makes it harder for people to choose sustainable travel options. Addressing the secondary cause but not the root cause is like burning the cart because the horse is hungry.

Same problem with sewerage being in the news at the moment. Water companies haven't the funds to improve their network, and network improvements are required because the population is growing. The result is that storm sewage ends up in the environment. The root cause is actually population growth and even the secondary cause is non-contribution by the authorities and developers to infrastructure improvements. But the governmental expectation is that water companies spend their own money, of which they have very little, on practically rewriting the laws of hydraulics to deliver their ludicrously poorly thought out development plans.

Another problem is that not all schools are the same. WHen my children were at junior school, we looked at two different junior schools for them. Due to the different personalities of my son and my daughter, we would have chosen school A for one of them and school B for the other had it not been for the fact that both wer half to three-quarters of an hours walk in opposite directions. In the end, both went to the same school. In order to minimise the amount of driving, my wife organised a school run with another parent.

[rhyds]

Another problem is that not all schools are the same. WHen my children were at junior school, we looked at two different junior schools for them. Due to the different personalities of my son and my daughter, we would have chosen school A for one of them and school B for the other had it not been for the fact that both wer half to three-quarters of an hours walk in opposite directions. In the end, both went to the same school. In order to minimise the amount of driving, my wife organised a school run with another parent.

This is very true. My sister for example lives in Cardiff and has a primary school 1/4 mile away from her home at the end of the road. The problem is that its an English medium primary and we're a Welsh speaking family, so her kids go to a different school 1 1/2 miles away. As its on the way to her and my bro in law's work they cycle there with the kids.

It also doesn't help when Local Education Authorities make catchment areas a confusing mess themselves. For example my primary school was in Corris, which is pretty much on the border between Gwynedd and Powys.

Now, the school catchment area itself was reasonably sensible, however the secondary the school fed in to wasn't Ysgol y Gader/Bro Idris (Dolgellau), which was 10 miles away and had a direct service bus route, but rather Tywyn high school 16 miles and two buses away. To this day I can't work out why Corris pupils are "defaulted" to Tywyn rather than Dolgellau, and a siginifcant number of parents opt for Ysgol Bro Hyddgen (Machynlleth) over the border in Powys, as its 5 miles away, has a direct bus and is the focal point for pretty much everything else (employment, shopping etc).

[Vierwielen]

Another problem is that not all schools are the same. WHen my children were at junior school, we looked at two different junior schools for them. Due to the different personalities of my son and my daughter, we would have chosen school A for one of them and school B for the other had it not been for the fact that both wer half to three-quarters of an hours walk in opposite directions. In the end, both went to the same school. In order to minimise the amount of driving, my wife organised a school run with another parent.

This is very true. My sister for example lives in Cardiff and has a primary school 1/4 mile away from her home at the end of the road. The problem is that its an English medium primary and we're a Welsh speaking family, so her kids go to a different school 1 1/2 miles away. As its on the way to her and my bro in law's work they cycle there with the kids.

It also doesn't help when Local Education Authorities make catchment areas a confusing mess themselves. For example my primary school was in Corris, which is pretty much on the border between Gwynedd and Powys.

Now, the school catchment area itself was reasonably sensible, however the secondary the school fed in to wasn't Ysgol y Gader/Bro Idris (Dolgellau), which was 10 miles away and had a direct service bus route, but rather Tywyn high school 16 miles and two buses away. To this day I can't work out why Corris pupils are "defaulted" to Tywyn rather than Dolgellau, and a siginifcant number of parents opt for Ysgol Bro Hyddgen (Machynlleth) over the border in Powys, as its 5 miles away, has a direct bus and is the focal point for pretty much everything else (employment, shopping etc).

This smells to me of a bean-counter with a calculator trying to balance the sizes of each catchment area. AS an example, we have two secondary schools in Fleet. One of them backs onto the Basingstoke Canal which is the dematcation line between the two schools. We live close to the canal, but on the other side and are closer to the school which, in theory, does not serve our area.

[SteveA30]

Court Moor and Heatherside both are near the canal but, on the same side.

[jnty]

The school run is an interesting case. I've seen it argued (even on this board) that the reason parents drive kids to school is because they're scared of them being hit by a car on route if they walk or cycle. I've never bought that; I think the concerns are more that 1) they're scared of them being abducted on route if they walk or cycle

This is an interesting claim and obviously without surveying parents it's impossible to know what subjective fears they have, and judging subjective fears based on raw statistics is a bit of a fools game, but I thought it would be interesting to look at what the raw statistics actually are.

It is estimated that 50 children under 16 are abducted a year. The article notes that deaths are rare but I think it's safe to say that any kind of child abduction is a worst nightmare scenario and it's probably not worth trying to categorise further.

However, when it comes to child pedestrian casualties, approximately 3600 were hit in 2016, and specifically 324 children under the age of 11 were seriously injured or killed during times which suggest they were going to or from school - in 2014.

Clearly not all the abductions happen on the way to or from school, and the abductions figure covers a wider age range, so either way this generally suggests that children are many times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by motor traffic on the way to school than they are abducted. Again, I can't speak for every parent's fear, but I'd be very surprised if the fears weren't at least equally prominent in parents' minds given the higher likelihood of them having read, heard or seen about a child being run over locally, or simply having observed their child's potential route to school and thought about the potential risks.

[SteveM]

Clearly not all the abductions happen on the way to or from school, and the abductions figure covers a wider age range, so either way this generally suggests that children are many times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by motor traffic on the way to school than they are abducted. Again, I can't speak for every parent's fear, but I'd be very surprised if the fears weren't at least equally prominent in parents' minds given the higher likelihood of them having read, heard or seen about a child being run over locally, or simply having observed their child's potential route to school and thought about the potential risks.

These are all valid points but have detracted from the point I was trying to make in my original reply and for which I used the school run as an EXAMPLE. There are many others which I could have used - the point is, that you don't have to put everyone on foot or on a bike to make a difference to congestion and hence the need to build new infrastructure. Please reread the context of my original reply.

What we seem to be good at missing - as a society - is the ability to identify the 'low hanging fruit' and apply policies to grow that section of the overall user base. Even if that upsets people. LTNs anyone? In the case I was responding to, I was suggesting that if it was made much easier for those within 2-5km of their destination - whatever that destination might be - to make their journey by other than the private car, then some would take that option up and in turn that would reduce congestion and then the need for the scale of new build. And before you start 'you can't get a big load on a bike', there are lots of photos of cyclists on trailer bikes doing the main weekly shop at the supermarket.

The school run opens an interesting debate but is a bit off subject. To me it's the 'it's too dangerous for my child to walk to school due to the traffic, so I drive them there' idiocy - thereby adding to the traffic volume which they are afraid of, and require infrastructure upgrades to deal with. They complain about a problem of which they are partly the cause.

[jnty]

Clearly not all the abductions happen on the way to or from school, and the abductions figure covers a wider age range, so either way this generally suggests that children are many times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by motor traffic on the way to school than they are abducted. Again, I can't speak for every parent's fear, but I'd be very surprised if the fears weren't at least equally prominent in parents' minds given the higher likelihood of them having read, heard or seen about a child being run over locally, or simply having observed their child's potential route to school and thought about the potential risks.

These are all valid points but have detracted from the point I was trying to make in my original reply and for which I used the school run as an EXAMPLE. There are many others which I could have used - the point is, that you don't have to put everyone on foot or on a bike to make a difference to congestion and hence the need to build new infrastructure. Please reread the context of my original reply.

What we seem to be good at missing - as a society - is the ability to identify the 'low hanging fruit' and apply policies to grow that section of the overall user base. Even if that upsets people. LTNs anyone? In the case I was responding to, I was suggesting that if it was made much easier for those within 2-5km of their destination - whatever that destination might be - to make their journey by other than the private car, then some would take that option up and in turn that would reduce congestion and then the need for the scale of new build. And before you start 'you can't get a big load on a bike', there are lots of photos of cyclists on trailer bikes doing the main weekly shop at the supermarket.

The school run opens an interesting debate but is a bit off subject. To me it's the 'it's too dangerous for my child to walk to school due to the traffic, so I drive them there' idiocy - thereby adding to the traffic volume which they are afraid of, and require infrastructure upgrades to deal with. They complain about a problem of which they are partly the cause.

Yep, totally agree. I think this is why folk try to reframe the debate as "they want to shut all the roads" because then you can argue about individual hypotheticals: "my piano delivery business will go bust!" Of course, they aren't, so piano deliverers, disabled people, folk who have to deliver seven children to five different schools in the space of 20 minutes etc etc can use all the space left on the roads from the people who have simple and short journeys to make and are freed from car dependency by other measures.

[KeithW]

Not quite nonsense. Most D2s in the SE probably had lower traffic levels when they were dualled. The point about the A49 (through Herefordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire) is that if it was of a higher standard, it would take a long-distance load of the already crowded M6 through Staffordshire and Cheshire. Likewise the A41. Plus, both of those roads are notorious accident hotspots, and surely were they in the Home Counties something would have long since been done about that.

In other words, it was a commentary on the poor quality of links between N and S Wales, as well as the fact that there's really only one link between the NW and SW, the M6-M5 route, which is frequently overloaded.

Take a look at the Welsh Government web site, they make it quite clear that their chosen solution is to REDUCE the use of private vehicles not build more roads or improve existing routes.

The headline priority 1 from Llwybr Newydd for the next 5
years is to bring services to people in order to reduce the
need for people to use their cars on a daily basis. This will
involve planning ahead for better physical and digital
connectivity, more accessible services, more home and
remote working and more active travel.
This priority is primarily delivered through working in
partnership with others and through working strategically
across transport modes and sectors. For example, it will
involve working with local authorities and developers through
the land-use planning system and regional transport planning
and with other areas of Welsh Government in relation to home
working and our digital strategy.

[Osthagen]

Not quite nonsense. Most D2s in the SE probably had lower traffic levels when they were dualled. The point about the A49 (through Herefordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire) is that if it was of a higher standard, it would take a long-distance load of the already crowded M6 through Staffordshire and Cheshire. Likewise the A41. Plus, both of those roads are notorious accident hotspots, and surely were they in the Home Counties something would have long since been done about that.

In other words, it was a commentary on the poor quality of links between N and S Wales, as well as the fact that there's really only one link between the NW and SW, the M6-M5 route, which is frequently overloaded.

Take a look at the Welsh Government web site, they make it quite clear that their chosen solution is to REDUCE the use of private vehicles not build more roads or improve existing routes.

The headline priority 1 from Llwybr Newydd for the next 5
years is to bring services to people in order to reduce the
need for people to use their cars on a daily basis. This will
involve planning ahead for better physical and digital
connectivity, more accessible services, more home and
remote working and more active travel.
This priority is primarily delivered through working in
partnership with others and through working strategically
across transport modes and sectors. For example, it will
involve working with local authorities and developers through
the land-use planning system and regional transport planning
and with other areas of Welsh Government in relation to home
working and our digital strategy.

Just because its government policy, does not mean it's the right way forward. As you'll have gathered from some of the threads around this issue, that policy is widely despised on SABRE. I happen to think it's incredibly backward. I did my Masters in Wales, and my time spent living there was a lesson in how NOT to run a country. Have you asked the Welsh people whether they agree with this?

Also, the A49 isn't in Wales, nor are the counties of Cheshire, Herefordshire, Shropshire or Staffordshire, whose roads I was discussing.

[AnOrdinarySABREUser]

Not quite nonsense. Most D2s in the SE probably had lower traffic levels when they were dualled. The point about the A49 (through Herefordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire) is that if it was of a higher standard, it would take a long-distance load of the already crowded M6 through Staffordshire and Cheshire. Likewise the A41. Plus, both of those roads are notorious accident hotspots, and surely were they in the Home Counties something would have long since been done about that.

In other words, it was a commentary on the poor quality of links between N and S Wales, as well as the fact that there's really only one link between the NW and SW, the M6-M5 route, which is frequently overloaded.

Take a look at the Welsh Government web site, they make it quite clear that their chosen solution is to REDUCE the use of private vehicles not build more roads or improve existing routes.

The headline priority 1 from Llwybr Newydd for the next 5
years is to bring services to people in order to reduce the
need for people to use their cars on a daily basis. This will
involve planning ahead for better physical and digital
connectivity, more accessible services, more home and
remote working and more active travel.
This priority is primarily delivered through working in
partnership with others and through working strategically
across transport modes and sectors. For example, it will
involve working with local authorities and developers through
the land-use planning system and regional transport planning
and with other areas of Welsh Government in relation to home
working and our digital strategy.

Just because its government policy, does not mean it's the right way forward. As you'll have gathered from some of the threads around this issue, that policy is widely despised on SABRE. I happen to think it's incredibly backward. I did my Masters in Wales, and my time spent living there was a lesson in how NOT to run a country. Have you asked the Welsh people whether they agree with this?

Also, the A49 isn't in Wales, nor are the counties of Cheshire, Herefordshire, Shropshire or Staffordshire, whose roads I was discussing.

I personally think that it's the right way forward. We need less people using roads and more people using rail services. We should have a comprehensive high-speed rail network by now, however, due to government policy favouring road building because of economic opportunities and car-dependent housing developments which churn a huge profit, we are now playing catch-up as has been observed with HS2. That's not to say that road improvement schemes should be considered, just that they should be set aside in favour of more important projects, such as improvements to rail and cycling infrastructure.

[KeithW]

Just because its government policy, does not mean it's the right way forward. As you'll have gathered from some of the threads around this issue, that policy is widely despised on SABRE. I happen to think it's incredibly backward. I did my Masters in Wales, and my time spent living there was a lesson in how NOT to run a country. Have you asked the Welsh people whether they agree with this?

Also, the A49 isn't in Wales, nor are the counties of Cheshire, Herefordshire, Shropshire or Staffordshire, whose roads I was discussing.

The Welsh get to vote in elections and the policy is clearly understood, as it happens the largest party in the Senedd is Labour and the second largest the conservatives. The current minister of transport is Lee Waters who is a member of the Labour Party.

[Big L]

Welsh road building could be back on but probably not the M4 Newport Relief Road.

[owen b]

Welsh road building could be back on but probably not the M4 Newport Relief Road.

Reading that news story it appears to rule out building roads which add capacity, which surely pretty much rules out building roads, so it seems to be more or less a contradiction in terms. For example, building a third Menai crossing so that the A55 is at least D2 throughout is surely adding capacity, if only at the crossing itself. Even if you close the old crossing to road traffic, there's still additional capacity as the new crossing will be D2 while the existing crossing is S2. Similarly, any town or village bypass adds capacity. So the remarks seem to be very ill thought out and unclear. Maybe it's an attempt to test reaction to a possible change to the no new capacity policy, while still leaving wriggle room to row back if the idea proves unpopular or unfeasible.

[Truvelo]

Will the third Menai crossing encourage more car journeys or will it remove a bottleneck meaning the existing traffic can travel unimpeded and therefore pump out less fumes.

[owen b]

Will the third Menai crossing encourage more car journeys or will it remove a bottleneck meaning the existing traffic can travel unimpeded and therefore pump out less fumes.

Presumably there's suppressed demand and congestion, at least at peak times and when there's incidents on the existing bridge, otherwise what's the point of building a new bridge? Assuming there's rush hour congestion, then presumably a new bridge would make living on Anglesey and commuting to the mainland more attractive and hence generate more traffic. I'd be surprised if a new bridge didn't encourage more car journeys in other ways too.

[rhyds]

There's an important issue to remember when discussing the third Menai Crossing.

Ynys Mon is a 3-way marginal constituency, with Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives very close in vote share. Therefore we're at the point in the electoral cycle (T minus a few months to a GE) where Labour mentioned building MC3 to win votes.

[Vierwielen]

Court Moor and Heatherside both are near the canal but, on the same side.

Heatherside (primary school) is a feeder school for Court Moor (secondary school). The other secondary school that I was thinking about is Calthorpe.

[Bryn666]

Welsh road building could be back on but probably not the M4 Newport Relief Road.

Reading that news story it appears to rule out building roads which add capacity, which surely pretty much rules out building roads, so it seems to be more or less a contradiction in terms. For example, building a third Menai crossing so that the A55 is at least D2 throughout is surely adding capacity, if only at the crossing itself. Even if you close the old crossing to road traffic, there's still additional capacity as the new crossing will be D2 while the existing crossing is S2. Similarly, any town or village bypass adds capacity. So the remarks seem to be very ill thought out and unclear. Maybe it's an attempt to test reaction to a possible change to the no new capacity policy, while still leaving wriggle room to row back if the idea proves unpopular or unfeasible.

It's the old buzzword of "locked in" benefits not being communicated properly. By definition new roads mean new capacity but I suspect what is really meant is they're not going to build schemes that lock in car dependency, so expect new schemes to be those that improve a problem stretch safety wise or whatever.

You also can of course bypass a village and stop up the old road so it's only useful to people who live or have genuine business in the village.

[jackal]

Mr Skates, transport secretary:

We haven't stopped building roads, but we do need to deal with the criteria for new road building schemes which states that you can't build them if it leads to extra capacity.

That's caused difficulty in terms of considering schemes, and interpretation

Maybe he's saying that the no extra capacity criterion needs to be dealt with, i.e., changed? Though it's a bit weirdly phrased, as though the de facto road building ban is an unexpected interpretation of the criterion rather than its plain meaning and intention .

[DB617]

Welsh road building could be back on but probably not the M4 Newport Relief Road.

Reading that news story it appears to rule out building roads which add capacity, which surely pretty much rules out building roads, so it seems to be more or less a contradiction in terms. For example, building a third Menai crossing so that the A55 is at least D2 throughout is surely adding capacity, if only at the crossing itself. Even if you close the old crossing to road traffic, there's still additional capacity as the new crossing will be D2 while the existing crossing is S2. Similarly, any town or village bypass adds capacity. So the remarks seem to be very ill thought out and unclear. Maybe it's an attempt to test reaction to a possible change to the no new capacity policy, while still leaving wriggle room to row back if the idea proves unpopular or unfeasible.

It's the old buzzword of "locked in" benefits not being communicated properly. By definition new roads mean new capacity but I suspect what is really meant is they're not going to build schemes that lock in car dependency, so expect new schemes to be those that improve a problem stretch safety wise or whatever.

You also can of course bypass a village and stop up the old road so it's only useful to people who live or have genuine business in the village.

Yes, and bypassing is desperately needed in some cases and has been for many years. I keep banging the drum of the A4055 through Dinas Powys and Eastbrook. The villages have become miserable, pollution-choked places to live or go to school because Barry - the majority of residents within which work in Cardiff - has grown threefold or more. The government were optioneering when they pulled the plug because of the ridiculous insistence on NO new roads. Doubling the capacity of the railway line that runs along the bottom of the town may help alleviate congestion slightly, but ultimately, the road will always ruin the villages it passes through unless replaced with an appropriate standard bypass. I'm sure there are more cases like this across the country.