All Wales Road Projects Scrapped?

[fras]

One thing that was mentioned in the original BBC article, but doesn’t seem to have been discussed much, was the statement that any new road projects “must pass strict criteria which means they must not increase carbon emissions, they must not increase the number of cars on the road, they must not lead to higher speeds and higher emissions, and they must not negatively impact the environment”.

Reading this literally, the “must not lead to higher speeds” suggests that - presumably - no real road improvements of any sort can take place! Certainly no bypasses, even just of a small village; junction improvements would seem to be out too. Some of these might of course reduce emissions if it means cars aren’t sitting congested in town centres, as well as improving safety. Maybe any new road projects would also have 20mph average speed cameras attached?

I'm afraid the lunatics are now in charge. Did Welsh voters vote for this ? I think not.

[ManomayLR]

One thing that was mentioned in the original BBC article, but doesn’t seem to have been discussed much, was the statement that any new road projects “must pass strict criteria which means they must not increase carbon emissions, they must not increase the number of cars on the road, they must not lead to higher speeds and higher emissions, and they must not negatively impact the environment”.

Reading this literally, the “must not lead to higher speeds” suggests that - presumably - no real road improvements of any sort can take place! Certainly no bypasses, even just of a small village; junction improvements would seem to be out too. Some of these might of course reduce emissions if it means cars aren’t sitting congested in town centres, as well as improving safety. Maybe any new road projects would also have 20mph average speed cameras attached?

I'm afraid the lunatics are now in charge. Did Welsh voters vote for this ? I think not.

But voting can also get things overturned.

That's what saved our capital from concrete viaduct blight.

[jnty]

One thing that was mentioned in the original BBC article, but doesn’t seem to have been discussed much, was the statement that any new road projects “must pass strict criteria which means they must not increase carbon emissions, they must not increase the number of cars on the road, they must not lead to higher speeds and higher emissions, and they must not negatively impact the environment”.

Reading this literally, the “must not lead to higher speeds” suggests that - presumably - no real road improvements of any sort can take place! Certainly no bypasses, even just of a small village; junction improvements would seem to be out too. Some of these might of course reduce emissions if it means cars aren’t sitting congested in town centres, as well as improving safety. Maybe any new road projects would also have 20mph average speed cameras attached?

I'm afraid the lunatics are now in charge. Did Welsh voters vote for this ? I think not.

Opinion polling looks to have been fairly steady recently but I suppose the next one will be interesting. I imagine voters are more concerned about health, education and inflation at the moment.

[Herned]

I'm afraid the lunatics are now in charge. Did Welsh voters vote for this ? I think not.

Yes. The 2021 Labour manifesto was pretty clear about their intentions.

However, transport is hardly anyone's key issue when deciding who to vote for, so it's not necessarily true that the electorate made an informed choice about their transport policy

[Vierwielen]

One thing that was mentioned in the original BBC article, but doesn’t seem to have been discussed much, was the statement that any new road projects “must pass strict criteria which means they must not increase carbon emissions, they must not increase the number of cars on the road, they must not lead to higher speeds and higher emissions, and they must not negatively impact the environment”.

... snip

The criteria "Must not incerase carbon emmissions" and "must not negatively impact the environment" are probably sufficient criteria - the number of cars on teh road and their speeds will usually, but not always, follow from the first two criteria. Driving a car at a moderate speed uses less fuel than driving slowly with constat stop-starts. A good example is the Dublin Port Tunnel which was designed to take HGVs arriving off the ferries en-route to Belfast (and elsewhere outside Dublin) out of the Dublin centre. Th etolls are designed to keep local traffic out of the tunnels. If the speed criteria were applied to the Dublin Port Tunnels, then they would probably have failed the test.

[Glenn A]

I am quite positive about the South Wales Metro, which will be Wales biggest transport project since the M4. This will transform the diesel only system of commuter railways in south Wales, which are no longer fit for purpose, into an electrified system that is a hybrid of light and heavy rail and will transform public transport in Cardiff and the Valleys. It makes sense now the mainline from Cardiff to London is electrified to have all the local lines electrified.

[AndyB]

One thing that was mentioned in the original BBC article, but doesn’t seem to have been discussed much, was the statement that any new road projects “must pass strict criteria which means they must not increase carbon emissions, they must not increase the number of cars on the road, they must not lead to higher speeds and higher emissions, and they must not negatively impact the environment”.

... snip

The criteria "Must not incerase carbon emmissions" and "must not negatively impact the environment" are probably sufficient criteria - the number of cars on teh road and their speeds will usually, but not always, follow from the first two criteria. Driving a car at a moderate speed uses less fuel than driving slowly with constat stop-starts. A good example is the Dublin Port Tunnel which was designed to take HGVs arriving off the ferries en-route to Belfast (and elsewhere outside Dublin) out of the Dublin centre. Th etolls are designed to keep local traffic out of the tunnels. If the speed criteria were applied to the Dublin Port Tunnels, then they would probably have failed the test.

Quite - the Port Tunnel has led to higher speeds, lower emissions and generally better environment because as well as the diversion of HGVs, the speeds of all vehicles have risen to more economical levels.

I would disagree that roads should be seen as a way to build economic growth - they need to be justified by safety above all, and the solution isn't necessarily a lovely new D2, much as I have argued for doing a job properly if you're going to do it at all. A need for road improvements can result from economic growth, but in all honesty I would focus primarily on other construction sectors - not necessarily shopping centres, we have plenty of empty retail space - and build to support.

The other observation is to suppose that the Government's ban on new ICE-only cars in 2030 turns out to be more than virtue-signalling without lifting a finger to facilitate people without driveways and garages to access cheap charging facilities (a bit like promoting public transport while making it less economical to operate!)

Congestion in electric vehicles might not have the same impact on the environment, but the time wasted has a horrendous impact on the economy.

[rhyds]

I am quite positive about the South Wales Metro, which will be Wales biggest transport project since the M4. This will transform the diesel only system of commuter railways in south Wales, which are no longer fit for purpose, into an electrified system that is a hybrid of light and heavy rail and will transform public transport in Cardiff and the Valleys. It makes sense now the mainline from Cardiff to London is electrified to have all the local lines electrified.

The Metro plans are a good idea, as Cardiff has grown as a city to the point where it needs something more than just buses and the random mix of heavy rail lines it currently has. Its still crazy to me that to get to Cardiff Bay from Cardiff Central (and thus from the rest of the National Rail network) you have to take two trains and change at Cardiff Queen Street.

The issue is that while this investment will clearly help Cardiff, the Vale and the valleys, its being used as a justification for cancelling projects for areas that aren't really going to see the benefit.

[Vierwielen]

One thing that was mentioned in the original BBC article, but doesn’t seem to have been discussed much, was the statement that any new road projects “must pass strict criteria which means they must not increase carbon emissions, they must not increase the number of cars on the road, they must not lead to higher speeds and higher emissions, and they must not negatively impact the environment”.

... snip

The criteria "Must not incerase carbon emmissions" and "must not negatively impact the environment" are probably sufficient criteria - the number of cars on teh road and their speeds will usually, but not always, follow from the first two criteria. Driving a car at a moderate speed uses less fuel than driving slowly with constat stop-starts. A good example is the Dublin Port Tunnel which was designed to take HGVs arriving off the ferries en-route to Belfast (and elsewhere outside Dublin) out of the Dublin centre. Th etolls are designed to keep local traffic out of the tunnels. If the speed criteria were applied to the Dublin Port Tunnels, then they would probably have failed the test.

Quite - the Port Tunnel has led to higher speeds, lower emissions and generally better environment because as well as the diversion of HGVs, the speeds of all vehicles have risen to more economical levels.

I would disagree that roads should be seen as a way to build economic growth - they need to be justified by safety above all, and the solution isn't necessarily a lovely new D2, much as I have argued for doing a job properly if you're going to do it at all. A need for road improvements can result from economic growth, but in all honesty I would focus primarily on other construction sectors - not necessarily shopping centres, we have plenty of empty retail space - and build to support.

The other observation is to suppose that the Government's ban on new ICE-only cars in 2030 turns out to be more than virtue-signalling without lifting a finger to facilitate people without driveways and garages to access cheap charging facilities (a bit like promoting public transport while making it less economical to operate!)

Congestion in electric vehicles might not have the same impact on the environment, but the time wasted has a horrendous impact on the economy.

I quite agree that new roads are not always the solution to economic growth - what is really needed is a clear head that can see the bigger piucture. I can think of two examples where railway tunnels were the solution.

At the start of the twentieth century, Belgium had five main railway lines that converged on Brussels. Three of them - from Antwerp and the Netherlands, from Liege and Germany and from Luxembourg converged on Brusel Noord while the other two from Ostend and sea routes to the UK and from Charloi and France converged on Bruxelles Midi. During the first decade of the 20th Century, a tunnel was built to link the two stations and a new station built in Central Brussels. Today very few trains terminate in Brussels - most go in one end and out the other.

The example other is the 57 km Gotthard Base Tunnel which is designed to shift freight acrosss the Alps, and particularly between Germany and Italy from road to rail. It has a high capital cost, but the bnefits that it has brought are huge.

[AndyB]

Alas, big picture is often missed, usually covered in "That city with 500,000 people got a D3M, why can't our town of 10,000 with far less congestion have a D3M instead of alternating S2+1?" and other such non sequiturs, and of course using up money on shovel ready resurfacing.

[BF2142]

Humanity has always needed roads, be that for ICE-powered cars, EV vehicles or a horse and cart. No civilisation ever has not built roads. How does Wales think goods and people have always moved around? Unless Wales plans to replicate the Dark Ages, they will, eventually, have to build new roads to replace the old ones.

Fast private transport will never go away. People will always need some form of personal transport. Thinking everyone will cycle or use some non-existent 1x per day bus if you live in a rural area or take an expensive train that runs to a very limited range of destinations at a high cost 100% of the time is just pure political fantasy. If the Welsh gov and local gov cllrs are truly sincere about their commitment to care for the Earth, let's see them and their families sell all their cars and never ever take another flight for their summer holidays. Pigs will fly first.

If they were truly planning for the future, they would be thinking 3-D. Low-altitude autonomous transport is on the horizon. But as I said, that requires real planning and the courage to move and talk beyond unworkable infrastructure narratives and start looking at what tech is coming down the pipe and could be a genuine, low-pollution form of personal transport that does allow us to transition away from fossil fuel-powered transport.

[RichardA35]

Maybe the WAG are ahead of the curve and the move of many people out of offices and into hybrid and remote working alternatives will negate the need for "improved" transport links allowing the status quo to remain for a long time, if not into perpetuity?
Avoiding travel will always be a better alternative.
I feel similarly ill-qualified to comment on the direction and detail of purely welsh transport matters being domiciled in the deep south of England.

[KeithW]

Maybe the WAG are ahead of the curve and the move of many people out of offices and into hybrid and remote working alternatives will negate the need for "improved" transport links allowing the status quo to remain for a long time, if not into perpetuity?
Avoiding travel will always be a better alternative.
I feel similarly ill-qualified to comment on the direction and detail of purely welsh transport matters being domiciled in the deep south of England.

Not if you are going on holiday, visiting relatives, going to a concert or in my case last year in and out hospital. I got to see London, Manchester and Newcastle at least partially

In 2021 I even managed to squeeze in a week driving around the Porthmadog and Snowdonia areas. But the Welsh Government doesnt seem to want us anymore. Apart from the North and South Coastal regions public transport in Wales is NOT good. What I didnt do for the last 6 years of my career was drive to work, we all switched to home working, indeed the only office left in the UK was in London because the DfT could not handle anything other than meeting us in an Office ! Catching the train from Cambridgeshire to London just for a meeting was a drag. It was worse for one of my colleagues who had to come down from Darlington.

[jnty]

Humanity has always needed roads, be that for ICE-powered cars, EV vehicles or a horse and cart. No civilisation ever has not built roads. How does Wales think goods and people have always moved around? Unless Wales plans to replicate the Dark Ages, they will, eventually, have to build new roads to replace the old ones.

Comments like this seem hyperbolic, completely ignoring the detail of the announcement. Road maintenance is continuing, some of the newbuild projects are carrying on unchanged, others are being scaled down to only focus on targeted safety improvements. The idea that Wales is somehow abandoning the concept of the road is simply fantasy.

[SteveM]

Fast private transport will never go away. People will always need some form of personal transport. Thinking everyone will cycle or use some non-existent 1x per day bus if you live in a rural area or take an expensive train that runs to a very limited range of destinations at a high cost 100% of the time is just pure political fantasy. If the Welsh gov and local gov cllrs are truly sincere about their commitment to care for the Earth, let's see them and their families sell all their cars and never ever take another flight for their summer holidays. Pigs will fly first.

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.

[owen b]

Humanity has always needed roads, be that for ICE-powered cars, EV vehicles or a horse and cart. No civilisation ever has not built roads. How does Wales think goods and people have always moved around? Unless Wales plans to replicate the Dark Ages, they will, eventually, have to build new roads to replace the old ones.

Comments like this seem hyperbolic, completely ignoring the detail of the announcement. Road maintenance is continuing, some of the newbuild projects are carrying on unchanged, others are being scaled down to only focus on targeted safety improvements. The idea that Wales is somehow abandoning the concept of the road is simply fantasy.

Indeed.
"The Welsh government said all future roads must pass strict criteria which means they must not increase carbon emissions, they must not increase the number of cars on the road, they must not lead to higher speeds and higher emissions, and they must not negatively impact the environment." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64640215
So there is no plan not to replace existing roads as they wear out.

[Kinitawowi]

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.

[Alderpoint]

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.

My kids walk(ed)/cycle(d) to school the majority of the time. But they are/were both in schools within appropriate walking/cycling distance - nothing to do with any irrational "safety" issue. Since the introduction of more "choice" in schools, more children go to schools further away (either by choice or as there are no places in a more local school) so they have to travel further and especially for primary schools this almost inevitably means they end up going by car.

You then get the situation like in a neighbouring town, where the relatively central secondary school is next (school) year moving out to new premises (yippee!!) beyond the edge of town - the old site inevitably being developed for housing. This means that all those children from the far side of town who used to be able to walk/cycle to school now need to travel double the distance and so will now probably end up going by car.

If we want to stop the school (car) run, then an alternative needs to be provided - maybe import the american school bus system.

[Ruperts Trooper]

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.

My kids walk(ed)/cycle(d) to school the majority of the time. But they are/were both in schools within appropriate walking/cycling distance - nothing to do with any irrational "safety" issue. Since the introduction of more "choice" in schools, more children go to schools further away (either by choice or as there are no places in a more local school) so they have to travel further and especially for primary schools this almost inevitably means they end up going by car.

You then get the situation like in a neighbouring town, where the relatively central secondary school is next (school) year moving out to new premises (yippee!!) beyond the edge of town - the old site inevitably being developed for housing. This means that all those children from the far side of town who used to be able to walk/cycle to school now need to travel double the distance and so will now probably end up going by car.

If we want to stop the school (car) run, then an alternative needs to be provided - maybe import the american school bus system.

One way to reduce the school run would be to guarantee a place at the nearest primary/junior school as well as a choice of other nearby schools - it seems utterly ridiculous when parents can't get their children into the nearest school.

[DB617]

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.