New road schemes create more traffic concludes study

fizrar6 wrote:

Increasing population, growing economy, higher employment. All these plus more leads to more road congestion.  The CPR are very naive in their study to conclude that it is the construction of more roads which is leading to increased traffic. What are we supposed to do? Timewarp back to the 1950's?

The point is more traffic, not more congestion, with the conclusion being that any relief from congestion brough by new roads is only temporary. Build new roads and they fairly quickly reach the same levels of congestion.

The solution isn't a time machine: it's being more 'joined-up' with transport initiatives and giving alternatives to roads a proper chance.

If only there was someone in government whose remit covered all transport...

davel wrote:

fizrar6 wrote:

Increasing population, growing economy, higher employment. All these plus more leads to more road congestion.  The CPR are very naive in their study to conclude that it is the construction of more roads which is leading to increased traffic. What are we supposed to do? Timewarp back to the 1950's?

The point is more traffic, not more congestion, with the conclusion being that any relief from congestion brough by new roads is only temporary. Build new roads and they fairly quickly reach the same levels of congestion.

The solution isn't a time machine: it's being more 'joined-up' with transport initiatives and giving alternatives to roads a proper chance.

If only there was someone in government whose remit covered all transport...

You're right, and proper planning can minimise traffic growth. Indeed traffic growth has been coupled from growth over the past 25 years in the bigger cities as population and jobs have returned to inner urban areas where there are alternatives to driving.

It happened largely despite, rather than because of, much national policy though. London is the obvious exception where things are more joined up and the city has powers across transport. Elsewhere, cities/city-regions don't have the powers or money and national government works in silos.

The trouble with the likes of CPRE is that they predictably oppose pretty much all development and aren't credible. Their wailing about the green belt is the same - never mind that the green belt is the same size as it was 20 years ago (and much bigger than all urban area).

fizrar6 wrote:

Increasing population, growing economy, higher employment. All these plus more leads to more road congestion.  The CPR are very naive in their study to conclude that it is the construction of more roads which is leading to increased traffic. What are we supposed to do? Timewarp back to the 1950's?

Two things.

1. as already said, CPRE are not the first to break this, it has long been known as factual.

2. genuine solutions such as more active travel & better public transport do not mean reverting to the 1950s. Active travel is the nearest we have a 'magic bullet' because it can help solve or reduce so many of our current problems.

Do you have a financial interest in the construction or fossil fuel industries? If not then I'm struggling to understand the motive for posting your comment. Or perhaps you didn't actually read any of the article or previous comments.

fizrar6 wrote:

Increasing population, growing economy, higher employment. All these plus more leads to more road congestion.  The CPR are very naive in their study to conclude that it is the construction of more roads which is leading to increased traffic. What are we supposed to do? Timewarp back to the 1950's?

You can't just declare that the CPRE are 'very naive' to conclude that - you'd have to actually read the study and construct an argument as to why it is wrong. All the factors you mention could potentially be controlled for (and the economy isn't growing very much, economic growth is far lower than it used to be).
However, in fairness, I'm too lazy to read it either, so can't say for sure how well they control for such factors. But if you are going to make the claim that they don't, the onus is on you to show that.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Surely as the population explodes this means all respite from new road building will be always temporary?

The biggest problem with modern life is no local work unless you work in the trades or similar. Everything else is commuting - luckily mine is easily done a bike, most people aren't so lucky.

IIRC, in the past couple of decades, the average number of trips and distance per person per year has decreased slightly. But the increasing number of people has largely cancelled that out.

Of course new roads will generate some additional traffic beyond just catering for population increase - if it's suddenly easier to drive to a more distant shop or workplace some people will. That's not helped by our national hopelessness at sensible transport and land use planning - we're pretty hopeless at building enough homes near workplaces, or offering attractive alternatives to driving.

But I'd take most things CPRE publish with a pinch of salt - they tend to be anti-any development and often hysterical with it.

PaulBox wrote:

Ben Elton did a routine back in the 80/90's that explained this very clearly. Comparing a swing-top-bin to widening the M25, it's probably a bit dated now, but the principals will still stand.

Isn't there a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy section about building shoe shops, which is relevant, too? - passing the shoe event horizon...