Improvements are needed says Black Country Chamber of Commerce.
25th February 2010
On Friday 5th February 2010, a number of Black Country business leaders met with Tim Harbot, Regional Director of the Highways Agency to discuss the motorway and trunk road infrastructure in the Black Country and surrounding areas.
On Friday 5th February 2010, a number of Black Country business leaders met with Tim Harbot, Regional Director of the Highways Agency to discuss the motorway and trunk road infrastructure in the Black Country and surrounding areas.
The meeting, chaired by Black Country Chamber of Commerce President, Peter Mathews CMG, raised the views of Black Country businesses and emphasised the need for a dialogue between local businesses and the Highways Agency. At this introductory meeting businesses discussed a number of concerns including increased congestion on the already busy M6/M5 junctions in the West Midlands and the current roadwork’s affecting movement on our motorways.
In response Tim Harbot said “The roadworks on the M5 and M6 are evidence of our investment in renewing and improving the West Midlands motorway network. The introduction of Managed Motorways on the M6 will make journeys safer and more reliable for 160,000 road users every day, by using variable speed limits to manage the flow of traffic and opening up the hard shoulder as a running lane to provide additional capacity when required.
Tim went on to say “We are building on the proven success of Managed Motorways technology on the M42, which delivered significant benefits for motorists, the environment and the regional economy.”
Peter Mathews CMG, President of Black Country Chamber of Commerce says, “Local businesses are concerned about the lack of investment in our road network, particularly compared to other forms of transport.
“Hard shoulder running is wholeheartedly welcomed, but in the long term should not be seen as a substitute for investment in increased capacity.
“The Chamber of Commerce are keen to maintain a dialogue with Tim Harbot to ensure that local issues are heard and considered for action. To this end, Black Country Chamber of Commerce is currently arranging future meeting dates with the Highways Agency to continue this crucial dialogue”.
For more information or to arrange and interview, please contact Gemma Butler on 07810 377833 or email: gemmabutler@blackcountrychamber.co.uk
Effective transport strategy is essential
25th February 2010
Colin Leighfield, Chairman of the transport policy group at the Black Country Chamber of Commerce, sets out his views about some of the multi-billion pound plans to change the way we get from A to B:
Colin Leighfield, Chairman of the transport policy group at the Black Country Chamber of Commerce, sets out his views about some of the multi-billion pound plans to change the way we get from A to B:
As a business we depend upon vehicles to move goods around. We have sites across the UK of which the Black Country is the headquarters. We also operate from sites in Glasgow, Devon, Wales, Hull, Heywood in Lancashire, Liverpool, South Wales, Peterborough, Essex and Southampton to name just some.
We have approximately 75 HGVs and many of us have to drive frequently between the businesses. Very little of what we do can be facilitated by public transport.
It can’t consistently get us from where we have to start to where we need to go. We need an effectively integrated transport network in the UK which utilises all appropriate methods of transport efficiently - bus, rail, road and air - we need a strategy that recognises the importance of them all.
Transport policy is excessively politicised. Often the claims made for environmental justification are questionable when studied in detail.
Within Black Country Chamber Transport Policy Group we recognise the importance of a better informed and wider debate than we have now, free of political preconceptions and narrow sectoral interest domination. We are working to establish an improved dialogue with the Black Country Councillors and Local Authority Officers for this purpose. We are very encouraged by recent discussions and although we realise that things cannot be changed overnight, we recognise a mutual wish to improve communications between Local Authorities and business in order to improve the degree of consensus behind important transport decisions. Recently we have established a structured programme of meetings on a monthly basis between the Head of Transport in Wolverhampton with his team and Black Country Chamber specifically to discuss and progress transport matters. We believe that this is a very positive step.
An issue that concerns us however is the apparent lack of accountability and proper consultation procedures on the part of the Highways Agency. They have a massive budget with a very wide remit which we believe needs better scrutiny. A current example of our concern is demonstrated by the decision made by Highways Agency to go ahead immediately with the proposal for traffic lights on junction 2 of the M54. Although this has been discussed for some time, the decision taken to proceed now, in our view precipitately, with an expenditure of £2.6m and no clear consultation at a time when budgets are tight is verging on the irresponsible. Regardless of the legitimate debate concerning the use of traffic lights on islands, the primary reason for this, which we understand is based upon the future I54 proposals for industrial development locally, and which we applaud, is not imminent and therefore we see no justification for taking this action now on a junction which flows freely and does not have a history of congestion or serious accidents.
Moving on to the subject of rail, we would emphasise that decisions about its future should not be made in isolation from other crucial transport considerations.
There is nothing that can be done with rail to enable it to comprehensively replace the flexible transport system offered by roads, they can only complement each other.
We are not saying that we are against rail investment, far from it. But the net benefits of public transport are frequently poorly defined and often greatly exaggerated.
High density direct routes such as London to Birmingham and the commuter routes into the capital are essential and obviously should be properly maintained and improved where necessary. However, it is hard to justify the current imbalance in expenditure on transport which enables ten times the sum being spent on the roads to be allocated to rail. The ability for people and goods to move efficiently is a fundamental driver of a productive economy and yet has been neglected disastrously by successive governments over decades. An imbalance in expenditure of this scale can only represent under-investment on roads and the effect of this will in the long term be negative. Yet, they still don’t seem to get the message.
Massive expenditure is being planned for high speed rail and while in principle this sounds highly desirable, if it is achieved over decades at the expense of continuing gross under-investment on other transport networks, the results may be disappointing. The case for high speed rail must be made on a proper basis of evaluation and in my view those justifications seen so far fall substantially short. Certainly the response so far of our Black Country Chamber members to questions about high speed rail has been that they do not see a substantial benefit from it for the Black Country. Clearly the justification for it on a national basis has not been sufficiently well made to convince them yet.
Once again, the environmental case is being quoted as a key justification for high speed rail over long distances, particularly when compared to aviation. However, a careful read of the recent government financed report into the environmental impact of high speed rail on the route from London to Glasgow demonstrates that the environmental advantages over the total distance are highly questionable, taking into account the environmental impact of building and maintaining the substantial infrastructure to support the system. Indeed, on the shorter runs e.g. London to Birmingham, it is highly likely that the environmental impact when compared to alternative forms of transport is worse. Therefore, if such a prestigious and expensive project is to be supported, it needs to be based upon a much better business case than has been made so far and should also demonstrate how it fits into a nationally, beneficial, integrated transport network. If this case can be demonstrated then we should give it our strongest backing.
Cars and goods vehicles have far lower emission profiles than they used to and are being improved every year. Yet government and Highways Agency policy appears to be to try to artificially constrain vehicle traffic and slow it down, the justifications being based upon safety, and also the need to persuade people to use public transport. Many users on specific routes, both private and business, frequently have very little practical opportunity to change to public transport for various legitimate reasons and while the safety argument is always valid, an honest assessment of the social, economic and environmentally negative effects of artificial traffic constraint are ignored.
Apart from anything else, common sense tells us that causing traffic to travel intermittently or to stop frequently will substantially increase emissions per kilometre travelled. If you halve the average speed the emissions from engines will be substantially increased over the same distance. I have no doubt that if the effect was properly measured, and the economic cost and the socially negative effects of slowing journeys down, including on health and safety were objectively assessed, this strategy would frequently be proven to be highly questionable in its effects.
Demographic changes in the last 50 years have made it more difficult for public transport operated on fixed routes to serve our needs effectively. By the 1970s local planning strategy was encouraging people to move away from town centres and many companies were setting up on de-centralised business parks. The large companies employing several thousand people on single sites progressively reduced. Many Birmingham workers had moved to Burntwood, Tamworth or Aldridge, etc. etc. Their opportunities were different. Previously the majority of people worked for big companies close to where they lived. Now their journeys were far more complex with much more widely distributed starting points and destinations, which were far less well served by inflexible direct public transport routes. It is extremely unlikely that we can now objectively argue that transport efficiency or environmental consequences would be improved by trying to replace the use of private transport with public to serve such diverse travel patterns without the critical mass of people travelling on common journeys. This is the essential factor in abling public transport to operate as an economic and environmentally acceptable alternative.
Centro are strongly publicising their proposals to extend the Metro system in central Birmingham and also beyond that through the Black Country as far as Stourbridge. Black Country Councils are strongly supportive of the Metro proposals and we understand this. In discussions with Geoff Inskip of Centro in early 2009 it was made clear through West Midland Business Transport Group that business support for the Metro was dependent upon the production of a viable business case. This business case was promised by mid-2009 and yet we still have not seen it. With all due respect to Mr. Inskip, how much credibility does he expect to have with the business community if Centro cannot do a better job than this?
To sum up, not everything is bad. We applaud the development of advanced traffic management on the M42 and M6, yet it should not be used as an excuse to avoid other major desirable road expenditure. Clearly there are many improvements in public transport and we would never say that Centro have achieved nothing. However, some traffic management policies which artificially disadvantage private and business vehicle use are mistaken and should be questioned. We will see a new government in 2010 and they need to intelligently grasp the transport nettle. We have been seriously disappointed in many aspects of transport policy supported by the current government. It remains to be seen whether the next administration expresses a more competent approach which is not overburdened with short term political views and misleading environmental assumptions. Almost certainly, the huge budgets allocated to Highways Agency and Centro should be reviewed, as should their range of authority and accountability.
Even accepting future financial stringencies we can still have an effective and relevant approach to transport and travel issues if we review our priorities in a practical and de-politicised way. We must realise that an effective transport strategy is one of the best investments we can possibly make in future wealth creation and elimination of social exclusion.
Article published by Daniel Wainwright, Express and Star, Wednesday 10th February 2010.