...doing the right things

Everyone agrees that 2050 is a deadline we can’t afford to miss to get our carbon emissions to balance in order to achieve NetZero.

So how do we work back from there?

In March 2021 Senedd Cymru, the Welsh Parliament, put net zero targets into law, and set interim targets for 2030 and 2040. Getting on to the trajectory for 2050 means that the rate of emissions cuts needed must increase sharply in each target period.

Our NetZero Wales plan breaks down our overall target into a series of 5-year carbon budgets. The first carbon budget ran from 2016 to 2020 and was easily met because of the changes in the energy sector which saw the use of coal for energy coming to an end. But you can only close a coal-burning power station once.

The second budget from 2021 to 2025 is more challenging and requires a 37% average reduction.

Practically all transport emissions (99%) are emissions of carbon dioxide, and the transport sector is the third largest greenhouse gas emitter after electricity and heat production (second largest), and the industry and business sector (largest). Wales’ share of emissions from international aviation and international shipping accounted for 17% of Welsh emissions in 2019.

Therefore, reaching ever more difficult carbon budgets is not possible without tackling transport emissions.

The carbon limits set for the 2021-2025 second carbon budget period will be tough to stay within. Carbon budget 3 (between 2026 - 2030) is a whole different ball-game. An average 58% carbon reduction is required to meet this statutory target.

The trouble with setting targets for 30 years time is that no matter now sincere the intention of those who set them neither they, nor their contemporaries, will be around to be held accountable for them. And so the very act of setting them becomes a virtuous act in itself, but divorced from much meaningful short-term prioritisation risks becoming little more than a nebulous gesture.

The virtue of a carbon budget is that they are set at least five years before the financial budgetary period, and so the 2026 reckoning was in our sights in 2021. And it focused the mind of the First Minister.

After the election in May 2021 a new Climate Change ‘Super-Ministry’ was created by Mark Drakeford as part of a declaration that tackling climate change would be the ‘central organising principle’ of the Government. The main domestic drivers of carbon emissions were put together in one cross-cutting brief to get alignment in order to meet the stretching carbon reduction targets. Housing, planning, transport, energy, regeneration, the environment and digital were all brought under one Ministerial team.

Mark Drakeford put together a team that he knew were committed to taking action on climate change. Julie James was appointed Minister with me as deputy, and we were tasked to work together as a double-act across the whole piece. I was given principal responsibility for transport, regeneration and digital, and dipped in and out of other policy areas as needed (for example we identified immediately that there were some areas proving resistant to progress, or faced stubborn barriers, and so I lead ‘Deep Dive’ reviews on progress on tree planting, barriers to renewable energy, and town centre regeneration. I also led the work on taking through the Clean Air Act .

 


Lee Waters, Mark Drakeford and Julie James marking the passing for the Clear Air Act

Moving the reference point for transport from the economy department to one focused on climate change allowed a different internal conversation to take place. The traditional thinking within the economy department was that new road capacity was central to tackling congestion and generating growth, and therefore environmental or social harms were given secondary status. By re-centring transport within the challenge of meeting ever more demanding carbon budget opened up more creative thinking.

Incoming Transport Ministers inherit a pipeline of schemes that have been long in development, have already accrued spending in the millions, and have a weight of local and stakeholder expectations resting on their completion. Meanwhile often under their radar the pipeline is being fed with new studies and development work for schemes which keep the momentum going.

I was conscious that we were constantly creating more induced demand in the system for car use by continuing to develop a pipeline of road schemes without understanding the cumulative carbon impact, whilst simultaneously (and superficially) focusing on other measures to tackle car dependency. If transport had any hope of making its contribution to the overall levels of carbon reduction I was clear that this had to be questioned.

We agreed to pause all new schemes that did not yet have ‘diggers in the ground’ to test them against our carbon budgets and the new Wales transport strategy. With the election now out of the way the First Minister was now ready to countenance extending the logic of the M4 decision to other schemes.

In June 2021 we appointed a panel of experts to advise on how we could square our carbon targets with the ‘predict and provide’ approach to road building that has contributed to the long-term trend of increasing car journeys and decreasing public transport trips. They were led by Dr Lynn Sloman who had been part of the Burns Commission looking at alternatives to the M4, and as a respected transport policy consultant and board member of Transport for London, had the intellectual rigour and confidence to challenge assumptions.

The objectives set for the Roads Review panel were to:

• Ensure road investment is fully aligned to the delivery of the Wales Transport Strategy ambitions and priorities, Welsh Government Programme for Government commitments and Net Zero Wales.
• Develop a set of criteria which identify appropriate circumstances for expenditure of Welsh Government funds on roads.
• Use these criteria to recommend which of current road projects should be supported, modified, or have support withdrawn.
• Provide guidance on reallocating road space on parts of the road network which might in future benefit from enhancement.
• Consider how any savings might be allocated, in order to ensure problems on the road network are addressed, and in particular to make recommendations on how to tackle the backlog of road maintenance

The panel reviewed each of the 50 schemes in development. The panel agreed on four purposes where new road schemes could go ahead and “for which the likely additional carbon emissions may be justified so long as the scheme meets certain conditions”. These purposes would be 

1. Does it support modal shift and reduce carbon emissions?
2. Can schemes designed to improve road safety be achieved through small-scale changes, such as lowering speed limits, rather than increases in road capacity?
3. Is the road scheme needed to adapt to the impact climate change is already having? If so how can it be designed in a way that contributes meaningfully to modal shift?
4. If a new road is needed to provide access to jobs or new development is it consistent with Future Wales / Planning Policy Wales 11, which includes the principle of maximising the opportunity of access by sustainable means? And how can any new access road be designed to prevent ‘rat-running’?

The report also set four “conditions” that future schemes should meet, to:

1. minimise carbon emissions from construction;
2. not increase vehicle speeds that increase emissions;
3. not increase road capacity for cars; and
4. not adversely affect ecologically valuable site.

The panel designed these tests so that they can be applied at a very early stage to any future schemes. In a paragraph that sent shudders through the offices of transport consultants of their report stated:

“This ‘4x4’ of purposes and conditions for future road investment should provide a first stage filter for sponsors of potential schemes, when considering whether a road scheme is justifiable and appropriate. It does not remove or reduce the requirement for systematic appraisal, but will save significant abortive development work on inappropriate schemes. It will obviate the need for future retrospective exercises repeating the work of the Roads Review Panel They do not remove or reduce the requirement for systematic appraisal, but could save significant abortive development work on inappropriate schemes”.

The panel applied these tests to all 50 roads schemes in development.

The report published on February 14th 2023 amounted to a Valentine’s Day Massacre of long-cherished schemes. It recommended just 15 of the 50 road schemes proceed in their original form, with others scaled back, postponed or cancelled.

All the panel was doing was testing the pipeline of schemes against existing government policy. As the report noted “most of the road schemes currently in development in Wales were conceived before the stretching policy commitments made in the Wales Transport Strategy in March 2021, the Programme for Government in July 2021, and Net Zero Wales in October 2021”.

This was a novel process for a sector that had been used to rolling its eyes at declarations of sustainable intent and carrying on regardless.

The report was a powerful case for why we can’t build our way out of congestion. But it was also a long way from being a ‘ban’ on road building as it was characterised by the Government’s political opponents. “The Panel does not consider that current Welsh Government policy requires an end to all road construction. However, we take the view that the significant carbon emissions from construction, operation, maintenance and use of new road infrastructure, and from renewal and modification of existing infrastructure, mean that schemes that might have been funded in the past may not be appropriate for investment in future”, the report said.

There would still be a road building programme, but the bar was being raised for when new highways were reached for as the answer to transport problems.

The panel was clear that disruption was needed to achieve the ‘high ambition’ of commitments to reduce car mileage per person by 10% by 2030; and for 39% of journeys to be by sustainable modes by 2030, and 45% by 2040.

Whilst parts of the road-building industry continued to pursue displacement activity to justify a continuation of the orthodox approach with ideas of ‘sustainable road building’, the panel were clear-sighted about the carbon impact of building road infrastructure:

In our assessments, we were struck by the significant carbon dioxide emissions from embodied carbon in the steel, concrete and other materials used in road construction.

The 34 road schemes for which a preferred scheme has been costed could cause 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, just from construction. To ‘pay back’ the 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted from construction of one medium cost road scheme, we found that it would be necessary for 2,700 average car drivers to give up driving for ten years.

The other central intellectual challenge from the panel report was in applying the idea of induced traffic. Even if the magical thinking of some in the industry that emissions reductions could be achieved by material innovation, the panel was clear that the impact of building new road capacity would drive emissions in the opposite direction. The report said:

“Schemes that increase road or junction capacity may increase traffic flows. This happens in the short-term because faster journeys lead drivers to make more trips, longer trips to different destinations, or trips by car instead of by public transport or active travel. It also happens in the long-term if the increase in capacity facilitates retail, business or residential development in car-dependent locations. These effects, known as induced travel demand, further increase carbon dioxide emissions”.

As well as consuming tonnes of carbon from all the steel and concrete required for construction, roads quickly fill up with traffic again and deepen the cycle of car-dependency.

The business case of the Flintshire ‘Red Route’ that we cancelled on the advice of the Roads Review Panel said that congestion levels on the new £350 million (688m AUD) road would be back to current levels within 15 years.

Predict, provide, and repeat. We’ve got to break this cycle.

This argument is central to the challenge represented by the Roads Review, but it was also counter-intuitive and hard to sell politically. That’s why I gave much of the focus of the Government’s response to highlighting this theme. I told the Senedd:

“When looked at in isolation there is often a case to be made for a by-pass or an extra lane, but cumulatively it exacerbates the problem.

In the short-term creating new road space often speeds up a car journey and makes it more attractive than a public transport alternative. This encourages more people to drive. But over time this generates more journeys, with people travelling longer distances. This then creates extra traffic and congestion.

It also results in retail and residential developments popping up close to the new junctions, as we have seen right across Wales. These places usually have few public transport or active travel options and so people have little choice but to get to them by car. This produces even more traffic.

As people drive more, fewer people use public transport, which results in fewer services being viable, leaving people with even fewer alternatives.

This disproportionately disadvantages women and people on low incomes who we know from the data are most dependent on public transport.

For those who feel forced into running a car to access work the costs can be punitive. Studies have shown that the poorest households can spend up to a quarter of their income on transport costs, putting them into transport poverty. Not only have our transport policies been running counter to our climate policy, and our planning policy, but they have also been running counter to our social justice policies and that has to change.

Our approach for the last 70 years is not working. As the review points out the by-pass that was demanded to relieve congestion often ends up leading to extra traffic, which in time brings further demands for extra lanes, wider junctions and more roads.

Round and round we go, emitting more and more carbon as we do it”.

This was not easy to sell politically, and it did not go unchallenged within the Government. The Economy Minister Vaughan Gething aggressively objected in Cabinet to the recommendations but readily agreed to a compromise which did not dilute the intent of the review. As a result the Welsh Government committed to four future road building tests:

Taking the Roads Review, wider policy objectives and context into account, the Welsh Government recognises the role of roads investment in supporting the ‘wellbeing economy’ – which drives prosperity, is environmentally sound, and helps everyone realise their potential.

All new roads need to contribute towards achieving modal shift – both to tackle climate change and to reduce congestion on the road network for freight. We are developing a Freight Plan which will explore options for modal shift for freight as it often currently impractical to use sustainable modes.

As a result, the Welsh Government will continue to consider road investment in roads (both new and existing) in the following circumstances:

 

1. To support modal shift and reduce carbon emissions. This is about ensuring that future roads investment does not simply increase the demand for private car travel. Instead, we need to deliver schemes that contribute meaningfully to modal shift, which will require different approaches in different parts of Wales.
2. To improve safety through small-scale changes. Safety on the road network must be paramount. Investments for safety should focus on specific safety issues to be addressed (rather than wider road improvements and increases in road capacity). Speed limits should be considered as one of the primary tools for improving safety.
3. To adapt to the impacts of climate change. Climate change is already having an impact on our road network and is likely to become an increasing issue in future decades. Road investment can be justified to adapt for these circumstances to ensure roads can continue to function and contribute meaningfully to modal shift.
4. To provide access and connectivity to jobs and centres of economic activity in a way that supports modal shift. In particular, new and existing access roads will be necessary to connect new developments, including Freeports, to the existing network. The location of new developments needs to be consistent with Future Wales / Planning Policy Wales 11, which includes the principle of maximising the opportunity of access by sustainable means and should be designed to prevent ‘rat-running’.

In developing schemes, the focus should be on minimising carbon emissions, not increasing road capacity, not increasing emissions through higher vehicle speeds and not adversely affecting ecologically valuable sites.

We will consider these tests alongside our commitments in the Well-being of Future Generations Act through our transport plans which set out the policies, funding and schemes we will develop to deliver Llwybr Newydd, the Wales Transport Strategy.

To try and ensure that old thinking does not assert itself we created a role for independent expert advice through a new national WelTAG Review Group. This will provide specialist technical challenge and assurance to Ministers and officials on whether specific WelTAG studies align with Llwybr Newydd and the four tests set out in our response to the Roads Review.

The first example of this in practice is a by-pass that was rejected by the Roads Review panel in Llanharan, near Bridgend in south Wales. After a challenge process led by one of the panel members using the new roads policy 4x4 purposes and conditions an alternative project has emerged.

The process stretched the professional boundaries that highway engineers had traditionally adhered to, and unlocked the imagination and pragmatism that the profession prides itself on. It gives me hope that we can change the culture of the profession to move beyond the orthodox approach to road design to find a way of providing sustainable transport corridors that don’t compound and lock-in existing patterns. There’s a lot other Highway Authorities can take from the work so far.



_______________

Case study


A ‘High Speed’ by-pass around the village of Llanharan has been long-planned as part of a development to add 1,850 homes to the area.

The by-pass had local support from villagers in Llanharan who wanted to ‘relieve pressure’ on the cramped, Victorian high street that runs through the town, 15 miles west of Cardiff.

The car-dependent location would not meet current Welsh Government planning policy, but with the development half completed a new road was integral to completing the housing scheme.

After cancellation resulting from the Roads Review the local Council adopted a pragmatic approach and worked closely with the Welsh Government and Transport for Wales to re-design the scheme to meet the new tests.

The new design that has emerged provides the same connectivity but is not the 50mph / 80kph ‘high-speed bypass’ as envisioned, but a 30mph / 48kph road. That shift in the character of the road then allowed for a series of key changes to be made which also makes it cheaper to build and maintain.

 

The lower speed limit allowed for a different set of design standards and requirements for visibility and sight-lines. With different dimensions the 30mph roads need less land and in-turn requires fewer materials. This not only lowers the scheme and maintenance costs, but also cuts the embedded carbon.

In the case of Llanharan the land footprint of the new scheme will reduce by 45%, and involve a reduction of 30% in embodied carbon. It also halves the habitat loss and avoids the destruction of ancient woodland (a saving of 0.6 hectares of irreplaceable woods) that was involved in the original scheme.

The scheme would still enable the diversion of HGVs from the narrow village streets, but the alternative route will have bus priority and active travel built in. The design includes over 4km of active travel links, pedestrian crossings, and bus priority measures. The authority also plans to ensure four buses every hour along the new route.

There’s more detail to be developed, including looking at road space reallocation through the village which will see a reduction in traffic flows.

_______________