Overblown infrastructure projects damage lives and imperil democracy. Why is Britain addicted to them? | George Monbiot
THere seem to be two main determinants of the construction of the infrastructure. The first is whether it provides important and lucrative contracts for powerful companies. The second is whether ministers can place next to him in helmets and yellow jackets. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the decisions made.
The two determinants promote large and spectacular patterns. Large companies do not want to improve in minor improvements: real money comes from prestige projects on which governments cannot afford to lose face, ensuring that they continue to throw money, so high in budgetary spirals. And few ministers want to pose next to a new bus stop: a large ego requires a large setting.
Last week, the government discreetly lit 590 million pounds sterling at the Thames planned, east of London. This is the kind of money that other public services must began. Compare it, for example, with the funding allocated in this month’s expense examination for local equipment such as parks, libraries and swimming pools. Throughout England, they received 350 million pounds sterling. But additional money for the drop in the Thames Crossing bought less than a road mile. This means that the total cost of the program, according to the government, increased to 9.2 billion pounds sterling, for 14 miles of road.
Even it is a major underestimation. As the Transport Action Network (TAN) underlines, several aspects of the project, such as the necessary upgrades of the junctions and connection roads, to take additional traffic, were excluded from the total, disguising the total cost. Tan estimates it at 16 billion pounds sterling. This is more than all the new money (15 billion pounds sterling) deceived by Rachel Reeves this month for buses, trains and trams in England, outside London. It is seven times more than the treasure allocated to the repair of school’s classrooms in England. Or the government could use it to double the amount invested in the National Housing Bank, to build social and affordable houses: who, on the other hand, we need.
The Coarse Advantage Report (BCR) is shocking, whatever the way you cut it. Using the official figure for costs, government national highways estimated the BCR at 0.48: in other words, a net loss of 52 pence for each book spent. He then launched “economic advantages” vaguely defined to offer an “adjusted BCR” of 1.22. It is still a low value for money. Compare it with the fixing of nests-de-poule and the maintenance of local roads, which has a BCR of 7, officially a “very high” value for money. Oh, and guess what? The maintenance backlog of local roads in England is just over 16 billion pounds sterling.
I asked the campaign better transport to estimate what could be done with the official figure of 9.2 billion pounds sterling. He told me that money would allow each community of England to have what the government defines as a “reasonable level” of bus services for the next nine years. Or it could pay 11,400 miles (18,400 km) of cycle paths, or 5,700 miles (9,200 km) of bus tracks.
So why is this widely expensive white elephant constantly infused while the services and crucial advantages are reduced? The index is the “very expensive” bit: a single project on this scale can be extremely lucrative for large companies, and they will put pressure for this with proportional vigor.
The government insists that the new road will relieve congestion. But even 30 years ago, official evaluations have shown that new roads generate new traffic, a phenomenon called “induced demand”. They transfer congestion to the following pinch point, which becomes another problem for the government: jobs for life for the construction industry. Using national highway modeling data, the Thurrock Council believes that traffic on Dartford Crossing, that the new road is supposed to relieve, will return to current levels in just five years. Since the lower crossing of the Thames will take at least seven years to build, with a massive disturbance throughout, it is difficult to detect public advantages. It will also channel more traffic towards M25, A13 and M2, considerably increasing congestion.
Tan did what successive governments, surprisingly, have not succeeded: the commissioning of a report on the way in which the demand for freight transport and passengers in the region and on the wider network could be better satisfied. He found that new freight and passenger characteristics connections for passengers would provide a much more effective solution, about a quarter of the price. Even with upgrades and electrification of additional railway gauge, bus routes, ferries and trams, this approach would remain much cheaper, while meeting the needs of the public, reducing pollution and social exclusion and catalyzing the careful transition for a long time towards rail freight in the United Kingdom.
But neither successive governments nor national highways have seriously examined such alternatives to the crossing. Over the past 60 years, the answer has been roads, whatever the issue. Not only have national highways ignored other ways to solve the problem, but he became a promoter as well as planner of the program, engaging in a public relations offensive that resembles me a crushing conflict of interest. If you want what transport planners call for a “modal change” from one type of travel to another, you first need a conceptual change. But we will not get it from existing agencies. National Highways is a relic of another age, unfit for the objective, leading us to a disaster. It must be rebuilt.
The greatest costs of projects like this are not felt in our tax bills, but in our body, our mind and our environment. The government estimates that the new road will generate 6.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. This would considerably increase air pollution and traffic noise, and would engage in a greater extent towards driving by car, with all its destructive implications for health, physical form and mental well-being, community cohesion and social attitudes.
In general, although there are exceptions, which improves our lives is multiple small interventions, adapted to local needs and sensitive to local democracy. What damages our lives are prestigious projects adapted to the requirements of Big Finance and business shareholders. The capital behind them, which sometimes seems more powerful than governments, deals with democracy and the needs of the public as traffic engineers deal with pedestrians – obstacles to conceive.
Sometimes large infrastructure is necessary, but at any time, it is a threat to democracy. This is why governments should approach it with caution and skepticism. Instead, they act like Hucksers for corporate boys. Such programs allow politicians to mark their brand on the nation, put the helmet and announce: “I did this.” Look at my works, you can …
A measure of the success of a nation is the extent to which it can reduce its dependence on road transport, in favor of inclusive and low impact travel. Our government seems to be attached to failure.
