eddington - predictable provisions

Once again an otherwise balanced article on transport in the Guardian ends with a hands up declaration that the government's ploughing ahead with road schemes galore is justified on account of the findings of "a lengthy government report" [1]. The report in question is the Eddington Transport Study which was published in a tide of great expectations in the wake of the Stern Review at the end of 2006. It received some warm words from the environmental lobby, emphasising as it did the importance of schemes aimed at walking and cycling for instance, and suggesting that road building could be cut by 80% if some kind of road pricing was introduced.

On the other hand, it recommended reforms to the planning system whereby inquiries into major schemes would be headed by panels of appointed experts who would make the final decision, making the system even less accountable than previously. It also gave precedence to competitiveness and productivity over environmental and social issues, colouring Eddington's approach fundamentally.

And then there was the proposal to factor in environmental costs into any new schemes, which was good (because it meant the environment would be represented in the planning process) but not that good (because it meant putting a price tag on the invaluable; nature reserves for instance, not to mention the climate itself).

But at the time it looked like there was real hope for his recommendations prompting a rethink of the roads building programme, in particular his emphasis on smaller scale improvements to the system rather that any grandiose schemes. But his critique of big projects was limited to rail and urban transport schemes; he is strangely silent on trunk road improvements, not to mention those for ports and airports [2].

He also states that while the transport system as it was was basically adequate, improvements to capacity would be needed in the future. This is reflected in the DfT's ensuing white paper where it states that most 'right commitments' are in place, anticipating a new plan in 2012. These 'right commitments' of course include all the road schemes currently planned - including the 6 billion motorway widening programme just announced - and, if Eddington's report still holds sway, there will be a need for at least 1,800 - 2,080 miles worth of new roads for the ensuing ten years after 2015.

Timescales like these do little to reflect the urgency of the situation. The level of car use now is so high that a 5% reduction in it would apparently incur a 50% increase in public tranpsort passengers [3]. This gives added weight to the report produced by the transport select committee in July which throws stark light on the adequacy of future public transport provision as planned by the DfT in the wake of rising fuel prices.

The Department have apparently adopted as a fundamental principle the 'mode neutral' approach proposed by Eddington - where all modes of transport are treated as equally valid. To pretend that the expected increase in, or even current levels of, car travel is acceptable and worthy of equal treatment is one thing. But to say this and then pump ever increasing billions into road schemes routinely running exponentially over budget, while public transport battles away, doomed and strained like an overworked and ageing retainer for the nation, takes some real audacity.

Not a single trainline has been opened in the UK since this government came to power, while 405 miles of new motorways have been built [4]. With this trend only looking set to continue, Eddington's talk of tinkering as opposed to any large scale overhaul, while turning a blind eye to road schemes and runways starts to look like a pretty serious case of double standards.

For all it's apparent consideration and however well meant it may be, Eddington's report is fundamentally schewed in the tacit approval it gives to new road schemes over the alternatives. Perhaps this is because he believes that a decent GDP has to be coupled to increased car use. What is certain is that he is locked in the model whereby transport's primary role is to respond to the economy. This means road pricing for instance becomes solely a tool for tackling congestion, not reflecting environmental costs or funding alternatives. It implies that so long as they are uncongested, busy roads are all well and good. Any look at current road emmissions shows this up for the insanity it is, even if pollution from present day snarl-ups is accounted for.

Stern understood that a healthy environment is crucial to a healthy economy. Eddington, despite his close affiliation with Stern, only goes to show how deeply entrenched the belief is that the economy must come first in all circumstances, even where it only serves the most short term of ends. On environmental and long term economic grounds, if he held any amount of the vision we need, Eddington could have called for and helped engineer an unprecedented retreat from the motorways. With fuel costs only set to rise further it looks as though we might just get this anyway with time - though without affordable alternatives the future of rapid long distance travel looks set to be anything but equitable.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/07/transport.localgovernment

[2] p.33, 'Transport and Neighbourhoods', Hank Dittmar, Black Dog Publishing, 2008.

[3]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/12/comment.transport

[4] Norman Baker, 'Viva Lewes' August 2008.

Copyright all Text and Images J.A. Hindle 2008