Alliance against road building

PRESS STATEMENT – 27th July 2006

ROADS ARE BAD VALUE FOR MONEY AND BAD FOR THE CLIMATE

Reacting today to the Transport Select Committee's scathing report into the rising cost of the Highways Agency roads programme [1], Road Block said that roadbuilders were lying to gain approval for schemes, that optimism bias for roads schemes was clearly failing, and warned that costs were only going to go higher. The alliance against road building said the fault lay clearly at the Department for Transport's door as they are clearly not scrutinising the appraisal and justification for road schemes adequately, and they called for the roads programme to be scrapped.

The report concluded that "it appears inevitable that costs will rise" (para 103), and "the cost overruns on these projects could be in excess of £1 billion" (para 107), and "50 per cent higher than originally estimated" (para 104) . It slammed the Agency for "an irresponsible and unacceptable waste of public money" (para 104).

The National Audit Office is currently conducting an investigation into the reasons behind the cost increases and is due to report in the Autumn. Road Block is participating in the investigation. Road Block also contributed to the Select Committee's inquiry.

Road Block coordinator Rebecca Lush said:

"We are delighted that the rising cost of the roads programme has not escaped MPs attention. Road schemes are not only hugely bad for climate change, but are also very bad value for money. It is time the Department for Transport culled its bloated and expensive roads programme.

Rising road costs are not just down to inflation and oil prices, but poor management and deliberate underestimating of costs to gain approval for schemes. Costs are not rising by accident. We have noticed a pattern with Highways Agency and local authority road schemes that promoters are deliberately exaggerating benefits of schemes and down playing costs in order to gain approval. In other words they are lying. The blame lays squarely with the Department for Transport who approve every single one of these roads schemes and turn a blind eye to dodgy appraisal. This is a scandal, and results in billions of pounds being wasted."

The Select Committee's report into the Department for Transport's Agencies also criticised the arrogance of the Highways Agency who did not respond to requests for information on cost over runs by the Committee, despite many reminders.

The Treasury introduced 'optimism bias' in 2003 in order to deal with this tendency of road builders to lie. However, schemes approved by the Department since the 2003 guidance are still experiencing rising costs. The hugely controversial Weymouth Relief Road [3] has just leapt in cost to £77 million - an increase of 41 per cent since approval. The devastating High and Low Newton road in the Lake District leapt by 60 per cent when fully approved. Both schemes were approved after the introduction of optimism bias.

Rebecca Lush continued:

"It seems that lying roadbuilders have adapted since the introduction of optimism bias, and have adjusted the figures accordingly, in an attempt to gain approval for their schemes. There is no reason to be optimistic about roadbuilding. As the Committee acknowledged, things are only going to get worse."

On 20 July 2006 the Secretary of State for Transport announced he was 'minded to' approve the A3 Hindhead scheme, after first holding a consultation on the significant cost increase. The scheme was approved into the Highways Agency's road programme (Targeted Programme of Improvements - TPI) in 2001 at a cost of £107 million. In a Written Answer of 24 May Road Minister Stephen Ladyman admitted costs had risen to £239 million [2]. The latest increase announced on 20 July takes the scheme up to £370.9 million - an increase of 247 per cent since first approval.

The alliance against roadbuilding warned of other schemes with huge cost increases.

• The A127/A1159 Priory Crescent, Southend on Sea scheme has risen an astonishing 745 per cent since approval in 2000 - from £3.5 million to £29.567 million. The DfT are currently deciding whether to approve the cost increase.
• The extremely controversial A628 Mottram to Tintwistle Bypass through the Peak District National Park has leapt 9 per cent to £103 million, with more increases predicted
• The Bexhill to Hastings Relief Road, approved only in 2004 has already started to experience creeping costs, with a recent rise to £51.56 million.

The Department for Transport have recently approved cost increases for:

• A590 High & Low Newton Bypass on 11 April, despite a 59 per cent increase since approval in 2003 [4]
• A419 Blunsdon Bypass on 9 March despite a 124% increase in cost since it was first approved in April 2002 [5]
• M6 Extension from Carlisle to Guards Mill on 23 March despite a whopping 280% cost increase since it was first approved in 2000 [6]
• Connecting Derby was approved in 2000 at a cost of £11.268 million but had its approval withdrawn due to cost escalation, but was re-approved at £33.5 million in April 2006, a 197 per cent increase [7]

Notes to Editors:

[1] The Ninth Report of the Transport Committee can be found here
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtran.htm

+[2] Written Answer by Stephen Ladyman to Parliamentary Question by Chris Grayling on 24 May 2006. Tables (1 and 2) are attached showing the latest figures.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060524/text/60524w0554.htm

[3] The Weymouth Relief Road was approved in Dec 2003, at a cost of £54.546 million. In a Written Answer by Stephen Ladyman of 24 May 2006 Roads Minister Stephen Ladyman provided the most recent costs of road schemes which showed the scheme had leapt to £77 million - an increase of 41 per cent. The list is attached.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060524/text/60524w0554.htm

[4] http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/5066.aspx

[5] http://www.roadblock.org.uk/press_releases/2006-03-09.htm

[6] http://www.roadblock.org.uk/press_releases/2006-03-23.htm

[7] There is no link for this information, as the DfT have kept the approval and increase secret.