The road network across Wales and the rest of the UK has grown as planners have sought to enable more people to travel by car, van or lorry more easily and more quickly.
The Welsh Government has now published a set of criteria for any new road projects seeking funding in Wales that explicitly reverses this. No new road project in Wales will get funding if it will have capacity for more vehicles than the existing roads or if it will allow those vehicles to travel more quickly.
Wales' new criteria were published alongside the outcome of the Welsh Government's independent Roads Review Panel, which was announced on Tuesday, February 14 and effectively cancelled many of the biggest road building projects that had been planned to improve the nation's transport network.
Among others, the proposed third Menai bridge, A55 'Red Route' expansion in Flintshire and several safety schemes in mid Wales and planned improvements across the M4 have been cancelled. The cancellations have provoked outcry in many areas, not least in north Wales where the decision not to go ahead with a new Menai crossing has been described as an insult to the people of Ynys Mon.
From now, road building projects will only be successful in getting funding if they are deemed to help people shift from travelling by car to travelling by public transport or by foot or bicycle.
The Welsh Government announced on Wednesday: "For years we’ve tried to beat traffic by building more roads. It hasn’t worked. Around the world, building more roads and lanes has resulted in more traffic. That’s why we are going to do things differently in Wales."
The panel has set out four conditions that road schemes should meet in order to be consistent with Welsh Government policy, and therefore to go ahead. The relevant policy includes the Wales Transport Strategy, Net Zero Wales and the Programme For Government.
These are the four conditions that road projects now have to meet:
1: Schemes should minimise carbon emissions in construction
This recommendation means schemes should only be taken forward if the emissions resulting in their construction are minimised, with smaller-scale schemes given as examples of acceptable developments.
The report states: "A kilometre of single 2-lane carriageway has whole life emissions (including emissions from material production, material transport, construction, lighting and maintenance) that are less than half the emissions for an equivalent length of dual 2-lane carriageway."
The panel also notes that "minimising the scale of the scheme is the most important step that can be taken to minimise embodied carbon emissions," and recommends that embodied carbon emissions should be assessed at every stage of design for new projects.
2: Schemes should not increase road capacity for cars
One of the boldest recommendations set out in the report, this completely changes the attitude Wales will need to have towards road development. The purpose of any future schemes shouldn't be to increase the capacity of roads.
The report explains why: "An increase in road or junction capacity may increase traffic flows. This may happen in the short-term because it reduces congestion or enables overtaking of slower-moving vehicles, and hence makes journeys faster, leading drivers to make more trips, or make longer trips to different destinations, or make trips by car instead of by public transport or active travel. It may also happen in the long-term if the increase in capacity facilitates development (retail, business or residential) in a car-dependent location.
"For the Net Zero Wales targets to be met at national level, it is essential that individual or combinations of road schemes do not cause induced travel demand. We therefore recommend that schemes should not increase road or junction capacity for private cars relative to the current capacity."
The report notes that some schemes could be justified if they made journey times more reliable, and acknowledges the importance of this - particularly for freight transport and buses. But the panel also said: "However, in the long term, induced travel demand is likely to mean that capacity increases are not an effective strategy to improve reliability. Instead, we recommend greater attention should be given to schemes that assist with demand management, coupled with improvements in public transport and active travel provision."
And the report was very clear that schemes that tried to justify themselves on the basis of reducing journey times were not "consistent with public policy under any circumstances" as they would risk increasing travel demand for private cars.
3: Schemes should not lead to higher vehicle speeds that increase emissions
Citing the fact that most road vehicles on the road will be petrol and diesel-fuelled until the mid-2030s even if new fossil-fuel cars and vans are no longer sold after 2030, and the fact that petrol and diesel cars and vans are most fuel-efficient between 35 and 50mph, the report is clear about keeping speeds low.
It reads: "The average car emits 12% more carbon dioxide per mile when travelling at 60mph, and 29% more at 70mph, than it does at 35-50mph. The Panel therefore recommends that road schemes should be designed so as not to lead to higher speeds that increase emissions. As well as improving fuelefficiency, this is likely to mean that embodied carbon from construction will be reduced."
Although it noted that speeds lower than 35mph are also less fuel-efficient and result in more emissions per mile, the report said schemes to increase speeds in congested areas (e.g. those with an average speed of 20mph) wouldn't necessarily be approved as they'd shrink journey times and could lead to more demand (thus breaking condition 2).
4: Schemes should not adversely affect ecologically valuable sites
This one does what it says on the tin. The panel acknowledged that every scheme it looked at would potentially affect sites with notable ecological value, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Areas of Conservation and ancient woodland. It also makes clear the impact of some projects on habitats and ecosystems.
For those reasons, the report says projects that previously would've passed a benchmark of 'imperative reasons of over-riding public interest' and been taken forward despite their ecological impact would not longer be acceptable, and there should be a presumption that impact on these sites shouldn't be made.
These conditions are derived from the second of the 51 recommendations made by the panel. The first recommendation - the four purposes for future road investment - helps to understand where these four conditions came from.
In fact, the Welsh Government has since referred to these purposes (somewhat confusingly) as the "four tests" for road investment, meaning as well as the above, new developments should focus on:
- Shifting trips to sustainable transport to reduce carbon emissions
- Reducing casualties where they are high, through small-scale changes
- Adapting roads to the impacts of climate change
- Supporting prosperity by providing access to development sites that will achieve high sustainable transport mode share
The other key recommendations in the report are all focused on improving safety and 'delivering modal shift' on trunk roads and increasing walking, cycling and public transport use. They also refer to improving parking facilities and rest areas for HGV drivers, and creating several exemplar residential mixed-use developments with high uses of sustainable transport and low car use.
READ NEXT:
