Version 2 Feb 2017
M4 Inquiry. Proof of Evidence by Robert Waller.
- Introduction
About me
1.1I have lived in Newport for over 40 years, within 1km of the M4. For most of those years I commuted to Cardiff by train, bus or car. My wife and I care passionately about the environment, of Newport and its surroundings in particular. We want Newport to be a better city and for its citizens to have access to the very best facilities, jobs and open space.
Basic Position
1.2I think we have been misled by the proponents of a new M4 around Newport and, having looked into it, have come to the conclusion that a new motorway is not needed. The existing motorway is not so bad and the traffic load on it can be reduced by smaller-scale road improvements and a significant boost to public transport. The new M4 would be constructed at tremendous cost to the environment and the benefits to the economy would be limited. The need for it has been exaggerated and the Welsh Government’s case is not supported by the data. If built, at great financial cost (and these resources could be put to much better use), Newport would be squeezed between two 6-lane motorways and would lose all sense of being a city in its own right opening out to wonderful countryside and wildlife.
1.3In annex A I have listed some factual questions I would like to ask the relevant Welsh Government witness (as requested at the pre-inquiry meeting) and at Annex B I attach some comments on productivity.
2. How Bad is the Existing M4?
2.1The Welsh Government’s Statement asserts that the existing motorway “does not meet modern design standards”; “carries a greater volume of traffic than it was originally designed for”; that “congestion, with frequent incidents, is currently an everyday occurrence”; and that “the Brynglas Tunnels forms a regular bottleneck on the motorway at peak times”.
2.2This did not entirely accord with our own experience so we decided to measure things directly by driving the 6.6 miles between the Coldra (Junction24) and Tredegar Park (Junction 28) in both directions at peak times over 2 periods of 4 week-days in July and September 2016. We chose weeks that were not school holidays and varied the times somewhat to ensure we were not missing the worst periods of congestion. We kept strictly to speed limits and only changed lanes when safe to do so.
2.3The results were as follows:
Monday18 July / Tuesday
19 July / Wednesday
20 July / Thursday
21 July
am / pm / am / pm / am / pm / am / pm
Coldra / 7.56 / 16.34 / 7.55 / 16.54 / 7.56 / 17.26 / 8.14 / 17.37
Tunnels / 8.00 / 16.43 / 7.59 / 17.01 / 8.00 / 17.36 / 8.18 / 17.47
Tredegar Park / 8.04 / 16.47 / 8.05 / 17.05 / 8.04 / 17.40 / 8.21 / 17.51
Total Time / 8 mins / 13 mins / 10 mins / 11 mins / 8 mins / 14 mins / 7 mins / 14 mins
Average Speed / 49.5 mph / 30.5 mph / 39.6 mph / 36 mph / 49.5 mph / 28.3 mph / 56.6 mph / 28.3 mph
Tredegar Park / 8.08 / 16.49 / 8.09 / 17.08 / 8.08 / 17.43 / 8.24 / 17.28
Tunnels / 8.13 / 16.53 / 8.13 / 17.11 / 8.12 / 17.46 / 8.27 / 17.32
Coldra / 8.17 / 16.56 / 8.16 / 17.15 / 8.15 / 17.50 / 8.30 / 17.35
Total Time / 9 mins / 7
mins / 7 mins / 7
mins / 7 mins / 7
mins / 6 mins / 7
mins
Average Speed / 44 mph / 56.6 mph / 56.6 mph / 56.6 mph / 56.6 mph / 56.6 mph / 66 mph / 56.6 mph
Overall average speed for all journeys =767.9/16 = 48mph
Monday12 Sept / Tuesday
13 Sept / Wednesday
14 Sept / Thursday
15 Sept
am / pm / am / pm / am / pm / am / pm
Coldra / 8.02 / 17.15 / 8.23 / 17.30 / 8.07 / 17.32 / 8.45 / 17.46
Tunnels / 8.08 / 17.23 / 8.26 / 17.40 / 8.11 / 17.44 / 8.49 / 17.58
Tredegar Park / 8.14 / 17.27 / 8.30 / 17.43 / 8.15 / 17.48 / 8.53 / 18.02
Total Time / 12 mins / 12 mins / 7 mins / 13 mins / 8 mins / 16 mins / 8 mins / 16 mins
Average Speed / 33 mph / 33 mph / 56.6 mph / 30.5 mph / 49.5 mph / 24.8 mph / 49.5 mph / 24.8 mph
Tredegar Park / 8.17 / 17.30 / 8.34 / 17.45 / 8.17 / 17.50 / 8.56 / 18.04
Tunnels / 8.21 / 17.33 / 8.37 / 17.50 / 8.21 / 17.56 / 9.00 / 18.08
Coldra / 8.25 / 17.36 / 8.40 / 17.53 / 8.24 / 17.59 / 9.03 / 18.11
Total Time / 8 mins / 6
mins / 6 mins / 8
mins / 7 mins / 9
mins / 7 mins / 7
mins
Average Speed / 49.5 mph / 66 mph / 66 mph / 49.5 mph / 56.6 mph / 44 mph / 56.6 mph / 56.6 mph
Overall average speed for all journeys =746.5/16 = 46.7mph
2.4 In a perfect world then we would probably hope to travel rather faster than this, but bearing in mind that these results are for periods of peak traffic then I conclude:
a. that an average peak time speed of around 47 mph is completely acceptable;
b. that the variation in travel time from day to day is not excessive. For East-West journeys, the greatest time taken was 16 minutes, and the least was 7 minutes. For West-East journeys the greatest time was 9 minutes and the least 6 minutes. 22 of the 32 journeys took between 6 and 9 minutes. There is also a lot of consistency of journey time for the same stretch of motorway in the morning or the evening. For example, the slowest leg is the stretch from the Coldra to Tredegar Park in the evening but the variation between the quickest and the slowest journey is just 5 minutes.
2.5.These results are broadly consistent with those contained in the Welsh Government’s Revised Wider Economic Impacts report (figures 21-24) where the average speed for the slowest leg was about 37 mph (60 kph), but these data do not give total journey speeds so rather exaggerate the slowing down of traffic for short distances either side of the tunnels. Lower journey times on the M4 through Newport do not delay travellers over-much. The approx 6 miles between the Coldra and Tredegar Park junctions takes 6 minutes at 60mph, 7.66 minutes at the 47mph average I recorded at peak times and only 12 minutes if journey times dropped to 30mph – ie just 6 minutes maximum delay which simply is not significant in most peoples’ lives.
2.7 There are many lengths of motorway in the UK with greater levels of congestion (eg M5/M6 in the West Midlands, M25 around London). This is a fact of life and we all need to accept it and adjust our travel behaviour accordingly. We cannot expect free flowing traffic at 70mph on urban motorways at peak periods. It is of interest to note that a report on 26 October 2016 by RAM tracking (a commercial vehicle tracking firm) highlighting the slowest motorways in Britain, found that the M4 as a whole was amongst the fastest, with no mention of the stretch through Newport. One of the worst was the M32 in Bristol that achieved average speeds (not just peak times) of just 26.15 mph. Interestingly, the economic metrics for Bristol are much better than for Cardiff.
2.8There is no reason to think that these 32 observations of the M4 in Newport are not typical and against this background the claims made by the Welsh Government for travel time savings from a new M4 are questionable. Of course, if there are accidents, then these times will increase. But this would be the case for any road and (at the time of writing) I have not seen any detailed information from the Welsh Government about the frequency and extent of such disruptions.
2.9The figures reflect travel times at the very busiest time of day. In fact, traffic levels may have been somewhat higher than normal because for both July and September the A465 Heads of the Valleys Road was experiencing considerable delays due to road works, and during the September count the main rail line was closed through the Severn Tunnel leading to considerable delays to trains to Bristol and London, so some diversion to car travel seems likely. And of course at non-peak hours the position would be even better – for most of the day traffic is free flowing.
2.10 Next, I wish to address the statements that the existing M4 is not to modern design standards, with sections without hard shoulder, and carries more traffic than originally designed for. Well, there are many things in life that are not to the most modern standards, but that does not necessarily mean that they are not acceptable and need to be replaced. The fact is, though, that the M4 around Newport that we see today is not as originally designed. First, a programme of widening was introduced, taking away some sections of hard shoulder. Then a complex system of new roads was built in the area of the Brynglas Tunnels that resulted in a significant reduction in local traffic using the tunnels. And most recently a system of variable speed limits has been introduced to increase the flow of vehicles at busy times. As for the absence of hard shoulder, this is for relatively short distances and, in any case, is increasingly a feature of modern motorways in the UK. For example, a long length of the M1 south of Sheffield has recently been re-constructed as a “smart” motorway (similar to Newport) without hard shoulders. Breakdowns are less frequent than formerly and in busy urban situations can be dealt with through CCTV and rapid response.
2.11I am not claiming that the existing M4 is the best length of motorway around; it is certainly not perfect but it is completely adequate. And further improvements are possible which I elaborate in section 6 below. In particular, Junction 27 is far from ideal and seems to take mainly local traffic. It could be closed. And improvements to other junctions, particularly 28 (Tredegar Park) would reduce occasional tail-backs onto the main carriageway. Noise and pollution are issues for some residents close to the M4 but a good degree of that would still remain if the new M4 was built, and spreading noise and pollution out across the Gwent Levels is certainly not the answer.
Point 1: existing traffic levels on the M4 are not a cause of major concern and can be ameliorated by smaller-scale improvements.
3. Will Things Get Much Worse?
3.1Much of the Welsh Government’s case is based on the assumption that the demand for road travel will increase significantly in years to come and that we need to accommodate that by building a very large amount of new road capacity around Newport. There are very good reasons to be highly sceptical of such claims. This is confirmed by the revised forecasts, rushed out by the Welsh Government at the last minute (causing an inconvenient postponement to the inquiry), which show significant reductions to the forecasts that had previously been the main justification for the scheme.
3.2I do not wish to get into a critique of the detail of Government traffic forecasts. However, the application and use of these forecasts in this case is faulty and of legitimate concern.
3.3First, we need to bear in mind the frankly appalling record of such forecasts in recent years. The following graph comes from one of the England Highways Agency’s own publications (ref 1) and shows how the Department for Transport’s forecasts made in 1989 and 1997 compare to what actually happened:
This shows that the growth predicted between 1996 and 2013 was forecast to be 40% and 32% for the 1989 and 1997 forecasts respectively, whilst observed growth was only 13%. The tailing-off of traffic growth started well before the recession in 2008.
3.4.An even worse situation is shown by the following graph which also includes a range of scenarios recently included in Department for Transport forecasts (ref 2):
3.5 Obviously, what might happen in years to come is a matter of informed speculation and has been commented on by a number of people knowledgeable in the field. But I would wish to emphasise 2 points:
a. there must be a very considerable degree of uncertainty over these forecasts. Things have changed, and trends from the 1980’s are no longer a reliable indicator of the future. So decisions taken now, involving vast amounts of public money, are highly risky and should be deferred for as long as possible. A new motorway may turn out never to be needed;
b. the evidence currently available indicates a continuing flattening-out of previous rates of traffic growth and therefore a weakening case for the new M4.
3.6 This area may well be the subject of expert evidence, but nevertheless I have taken a look at it. Now, the number of vehicles on the road in future will depend on a number of factors, but principal among them are changes in the size of population and changes in the number of vehicle trips each person makes. According to the Office of National Statistics, the population of Wales is projected to grow at a lower rate than the UK as a whole and England in particular: between 2014 and 2039 the population of Wales is forecast to grow by just 6.1% compared to 15% for the UK and 16.6% for England. The population aged 16-64 in Wales is projected to decrease by 5% between 2014 and 2039. It is also noteworthy that our population is ageing and vehicle use (particularly at peak periods) tends to decline in older age groups (the number of people aged 65 and over is projected to increase by 44% between 2014 and 2039). This alone will tend to reduce the demand for travel particularly at peak times.
3.7Trip rates are an even more important factor, and the position here is very interesting: the average use of the car by individuals has fallen over the last decade (ref 3). At the GB level, shopping trips and commuting trips by car between 2003 and 2010 fell by 6% and 10% respectively. The number of cars on the road at any one time has remained broadly static, with the decline in average car use being offset by population growth (for GB as a whole). There has been a consistent growth in car ownership but people are taking fewer trips in the car (the proportion of trips people take by car, and the distances travelled per trip have remained broadly the same). Declining car use has been concentrated mainly in urban areas and amongst young men. The reasons for this are unclear – for example, it is the highest income group that has reduced their car mileage the most. In any event, there is no reason to believe that South East Wales has been exempt from these trends and, as an urban area, it is likely that trip rates have dropped significantly and could well continue to do so.
3.8In order to try and capture the range of uncertainty over traffic forecasts, the Department for Transport has begun to model a range of scenarios (ref 4). These indicate a wide range of possible outcomes, again indicating a strong need for caution. And these scenarios seem to show some signs of bias. Most ignore the sustained decline in trip rates. Scenario 3 does project a continuation of this trend but it also assumes “central” forecasts of GDP, fuel price and population. It would be more realistic to assume, first, a low growth in GDP (on 7 February an IFS study of longer term prospects envisaged a continued period of austerity, low growth and no increase in average net earnings for several years). Second, it would be realistic to assume a fairly rapid increase in fuel and car travel costs given the ever-strengthening concerns over climate change, the need to keep carbon “in the ground” and the strong trend in the UK away from diesel engines. Many cities are now considering drastic controls on diesel vehicles and there is active talk of a scrappage scheme. The UK Government’s Secretary of State for Transport has been talking of the need to move rapidly towards low-emission vehicles. All this will increase private transport costs and therefore reduce trip rates further. Times are changing rapidly here and in a few years’ time (let alone 60 years) things will look very different. Despite these questionable assumptions, Scenario 3 forecasts a GB growth in all traffic of 19% between 2010 and 2040, with that for cars and taxis being just 9% (later forecasts reduce this further). After 2025 it is more or less flat. Light goods vehicles are showing a greater growth, but this could well tail-off. For example, the efficiency of internet shopping deliveries is likely to improve significantly. Is it realistic to expect a further 60% growth in LGVs? This looks unlikely. And who knows what the impact of Brexit will be on traffic levels including HGV’s. It is not likely to lead to increases.
3.9I am not clear how the Welsh Government’s low growth scenario relates to the Department for Transport’s scenario 3 and I think we should have a better explanation of how the low growth figures are derived. To my mind we should have forecasts that assume a continued decline in trip rates, lower assumptions of GDP growth and higher assumptions of fuel prices, because these look perfectly realistic.
3.10Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that traffic growth is in part dependent on increases in road capacity. There is therefore a sense of a self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to traffic forecasts and road building (Say’s law). Instead of just forecasting road traffic growth based on past rates of increase, modelling of the number of journeys needed in the future should be done against a range of scenarios, including expanding the capacity of public transport rather than roads. Building new roads is not the only way to meet future needs for travel.
3.11As a result of all this things can go wrong in the planning of new roads. The Highways Agency in England commissions independent post-opening evaluations of major schemes (not aware of anything similar in Wales). To take just one example, widening of the M25 between Junctions 27-30 (ref 5). Its conclusions include:
- Observed traffic flows are consistently lower than the forecast traffic flow changes, due to an over-estimation of background traffic growth;
- Reduction in journey times has not been as high as was forecast in the appraisal;
- Economic benefits are lower than forecast.
3.12. A 2015 meta-analysis by the Highways Agency (ref 1) of all such post-opening evaluations concluded, amongst other things: