Local authorities face £671m bill after road schemes go over budget

[Mojo]

Taxpayers are facing a multimillion-pound bill after the government admitted that local road schemes in England have shot over budget by £671m.

The revelation comes months after the Department for Transport confirmed that the final cost for seven major road projects will be at least £1.1bn higher than expected. The latest confirmation of another unexpected cost increase was pounced on by environmental campaigners, who argued that the public would receive a better return if the money was invested in trains, buses and cycle routes.

According to documents released by the DfT, costs on 51 road construction and upgrade schemes managed by local councils have climbed from £1.33bn when they were approved to just over £2bn. The projects include the New Mersey Gateway, a six-lane toll crossing the Mersey, the cost of which has risen from £209m when it was first proposed in 2006 to £390m. Other schemes include a new Carlisle bypass, which has risen by £92m to £170m.

The DfT said it would consider requests from local authorities for extra funds to cover cost increases on a case-by-case basis but it expected councils to make a contribution to any cost increase. The government recently revamped guidelines on cost overruns as part of a crackdown on escalating road budgets. Local authorities can now be forced to pay 100% of any overspend if it has not been sanctioned by ministers.

Cost inflation on roads projects has been heavily criticised by the National Audit Office in recent years. A report on roads construction by a management consultant, Mike Nicholls, demanded that the government's roads authority, the Highways Agency, "improve reporting and control of cost". The agency re-examined seven major projects, including widening the M1, and found that its combined cost had increased from £8.98bn to £10.1bn.

A DfT spokesperson distanced the department and the Highways Agency from responsibility for these latest overruns, stating that the budget estimates were drawn up by local authorities, including Halton Borough Borough Council which estimated the Mersey Gateway costs. The spokesperson added that the department has attempted to reduce costs by issuing new guidance to local authorities, which has come too late for the 51 schemes facing a collective overspend of £671m. "The department has taken a number of steps to improve cost estimation and control by local authorities," the spokesperson said.

Aviation has replaced roads as a focus for the environmental lobby, but the continuing struggle with cost inflation has reignited the debate over whether more of the DfT's £16bn annual budget should be invested in public transport. The DfT pointed out that some of the over-budget schemes include public transport projects, such as the construction of a new bus interchange in Luton.

The Campaign for Better Transport, an environmental group that lobbies for greater investment in buses and trains, said the DfT should tackle congestion by abandoning road schemes and building more rail lines and bus lanes.

"Despite fine words on climate change, the government is still addicted to road building, pushing ahead even though the costs are spiralling out of control. It's time these schemes were consigned to the dustbin and the money invested in real transport alternatives to break this never-ending cycle of gridlock," said Richard George, roads campaigner at CBT.

However, a lengthy report into Britain's transport has argued that the country needs at least 500km-850km of extra lanes on motorways and A-roads by 2025, even with a national road pricing scheme. Motoring organisations also argue that it is unrealistic to clamp down on road construction when car and lorry journeys account for 80% of distance travelled.

From The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/07/transport.localgovernment?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

 

[Metroland]

'However, a lengthy report into Britain's transport has argued that the country needs at least 500km-850km of extra lanes on motorways and A-roads by 2025, even with a national road pricing scheme. Motoring organisations also argue that it is unrealistic to clamp down on road construction when car and lorry journeys account for 80% of distance travelled.'

Unrealistic? You have to laugh. The reason there is so much distance travelled is all the damn road construction and out of town developments. It's unrealistic to expect motoring miles to keep on increasing in an era of high oil prices (they are decreasing atm) and environmental concernes (we have about 7 years to fix that, if that) especially as there is no quick and easy technofix, if there is indeed a technofix at all.

The only one we have atm is more and better public transport to give people options. And I note the M1 widening is costing far more than the WCML, despite people crowing on about just how expensive railways are.

 

[Mojo]

The only one we have atm is more and better public transport to give people options. And I note the M1 widening is costing far more than the WCML, despite people crowing on about just how expensive railways are.

I find it rather amusing reading NATA reports for motorway widening schemes. One such appraisal came to the conclusion that widening a part of the M25 would lead to more use of public transport!

 

[Metroland]

Well we can tell how good government reports are from things like this

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46071.pdf

Which forecast oil at $73 bbl this year at the highest (it's now nearly double that).

They just make it up as they go along, based on a lot of clueless ideas.

If you want to know what the scientists and energy professionals are saying, try the internet. Which is where I get a lot of my info from.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node?page=1