Computer says road

Not my title, but that of this perceptive and persuasive paper by David Milner, the Deputy Director of Create Streets.  Highly relevant to the proposed Arundel by-pass: 'A common assumption is that spending on more and wider roads will ease congestion. However, multiple studies have found that building new roads does not achieve this goal and is, instead, generating more journeys and more traffic.' 

On a more technical level, the paper examines why planners put more credence on the output of transport models than resident's views, ignoring both the historic overprediction of such models, for example

and that said models incorporate the biases of the modellers themselves.  

Rubbish In results in Rubbish Out!

Pollution, or ..... more pollution?

 Bit of a depressing full council meeting last night (despite the welcome sandwiches - the meeting lasted over 3 hours) with the council voting to lend its support to National Highways' proposal for an Arundel bypass (the 'grey' route, for those that have been following developments over the last 4 years or so).

NH's proposal is straight out of the 'how much can we spend' playbook - the 'grey' route being, at 8km, the longest, most costly option - 'but think of all those construction jobs'...  It also flies in the face of a statement I received recently from a Senior Investment Planning Manager at NH 'We have committed to adhering to the PAS 2080 Carbon Management in Infrastructure standard, which has a decision-making hierarchy of: build nothing; build less; build clever; build efficiently.' 

In the case of Arundel, I agree that there is a problem, given that the existing Arundel Relief Road, taking traffic away from the town centre, dates from the late 70's.  However, with the prospect of traffic reduction at the end of this decade (which has to happen if the UK is to achieve its carbon commitments - see the CCC 6th Carbon Budget) then a local scale, affordable, environmentally sensitive, highway flow improvement, along the lines of the Arundel Alternative, that could be delivered in far less time, would seem to be far more appropriate than this monstrosity...

For calibration, the proposed viaduct is roughly 1.5km long - 3 times the length of the Adur viaduct at Shoreham-by-Sea!