Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Car lobby and greens on collision course over 'myths'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 November 2008
A MOTORING group has attempted to explode the "myths" of road-building, a move which has triggered scorn from environmentalists.
The report by the RAC Foundation claims new roads do not significantly increase emissions or simply fill up with traffic after being opened, and that traffic pollution is not getting worse.

The study is seen as an attempt to prevent roadbuilding f
rom falling victim to government spending cuts.

Stephen Glaister, the foundation's director, said: "Road building, if well designed, can be a cost-effective way of improving mobility for all, without having a material effect on climate change."

However, the Green MSP Patrick Harvie dismissed the claims as "the thinnest set of pseudo-scientific arguments for unsustainable road-building that could be imagined".

He said the foundation complained that motorists were paying too much, yet it admitted its arguments depended on the introduction of road tolls.

Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "Far from 'myth busting', the claims in this report comprise a litany of misleading assertions, half truths and straw men. I don't think I've seen such a dodgy dossier since the one used to justify war on Iraq."

The foundation, formerly the research arm of the RAC, said it "campaigns to secure a fair deal for responsible road users".

It is thought to fear that ministers may include new roads in any spending cuts forced by the looming recession, since that could help them meet climate change reduction targets.

The foundation's claims also come despite the Scottish Government admitting that planned new major roads will increase carbon dioxide emissions by more than 250,000 tonnes a year by 2025.

More than half of the extra emissions would be produced by the five-mile M74 extension under construction in Glasgow, which is currently expected to cost £692 million – or £26,000 a foot.


Two sides to every story on the future of transport

1 RAC FOUNDATION: New road capacity does not simply fill up with traffic. Additional traffic may occur on new routes as less suitable roads are relieved of congestion.

GREEN PARTY: New road capacity has been shown to generate an average of one-fifth more traffic, greatly increasing climate-changing emissions. New roads lead to new journeys being taken on them.

2 RAC: Building roads will not have a significant effect on climate change, so long as wider policy measures are also introduced. Road building on its own can slightly increase carbon dioxide emissions, but it could also reduce emissions by up to 10 per cent if introduced alongside road-pricing.

GREEN: Relying on the car and pricing public transport out of the market is exactly what underlies our current worsening emissions. Of the 19 road-building projects currently planned by the Scottish Government, just one shows any carbon reduction.

3 RAC: Traffic pollution is not getting worse. Vehicle technology has reduced traffic pollution significantly.

GREEN: The most recent figures show that in 2004-5, Scotland's road transport emissions of increased by 70,000 tonnes.

4 RAC: Roads do not occupy large areas of land – they cover less than 2 per cent of the surface of Britain.

GREEN: Land for roads, such as the proposed Aberdeen bypass, is often the most beautiful and ecologically sensitive.

5 RAC: The UK is not unusual in Europe in relying on roads and has the lowest level of motorways and main roads relative to its population.

GREEN: This is spurious and ignores so many other factors, notably the higher costs of public transport in the UK.

6 RAC: Building roads will benefit low-income groups, as all income groups rely on roads for more than 92 per cent of their travel.

GREEN: Most of the poorest in society live in households without access to a car. Britain has historically had the lowest investment in public transport, leading to its excessive cost and limited services.

7 RAC: The construction industry can accommodate a substantial increase in road building.

GREEN: The construction industry would no doubt deliver any level of road-building required.

8 RAC: Roads are efficient users of space in comparison with the railways. Roads carry almost five times more passenger traffic than railways and take up only 50 per cent more land.

GREEN: Roads are more heavily used because the total cost of motoring continues to fall, despite changes to oil prices. Driving generates about three times as much per passenger mile as trains.

9 RAC: Public transport is not a ready alternative to the private car. Railways serve very distinct markets and have little room for additional passengers. Bus services cover less than 23 per cent of the road network.

GREEN: In a compact country like Britain, high-quality public transport is easily deliverable, if there (is] the political will.

10 RAC: Road traffic does pay its way. Even if road users were put in a unique position of needing to pay all of their external costs, such as pollution, congestion and for accidents, current charges are too high.

GREEN: When the effects of pollution are factored in, as they should be, these taxes cover less than half of the overall costs imposed on society.

11 RAC: Building new roads is not too costly. In many cases, the benefits of road development have vastly outweighed its costs.

GREEN: The costs of developing new roads are enormous. The Scottish Government is about to spend £6 billion on unnecessary roads.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 07/11/2008 00:20:51
How the greens can object to road improvements which help stop traffic congestion and hence reduce emmissions while at the same support dumping millions of tonnes of reinforced concrete scattered over hundreds of thousands of acres of hillsides for turbine foundations beats me.
2

jerrymanders,

07/11/2008 01:03:22
All roads lead to Moan.
3

Hmm ...,

07/11/2008 01:51:04
... the thing is that the Greens are actually just against cars. Doesn't matter how well planned the roads are or how well used. They just don't like cars.

Bigots!

And hypocrites - they use taxis instead of their own cars so the vehicles make two journeys - one to deliver them to wherever they are going and another to collect them later!
4

Guga II,

Rockall 07/11/2008 03:04:47
If these greenie fanatics had their way, we'd all be back on the horse and cart, and living in caves.

Strangely enough though, I don't hear about many greenies refusing to use cars, taxis, buses, trains and planes. If they were genuine, as opposed to being a total mob of drongos, they'd either be walking everywhere or going around in a horse and cart, and never ever going on holidays.
5

Pilrig.,

Livingston 07/11/2008 05:33:33
Duncan Mclaren gets aboot the country by bike , I presume. And when he goes overseas he travels by canoe.
6

M.T.,

07/11/2008 07:43:54
Our roads are not safe for any road user.

Check the damage done to the wall of your tyre or rim of your wheel after hitting a pothole, then hope and pray the tyre doesn't blow out whilst you are traveling down the motorway with your family even at a reasonable speed.

Under Health & Safety rules, an employer must have their car park or entrance to their premises safe for their employees or they are fined substantially. Any defect on roads within premises reported to an employer must be repaired with immediate effect or the company can be shut down. Financial cost is not considered to be an issue for non-compliance. However our government, who has a duty of care to the public, leave essential maintenance or replacement of our roads as a last resort, despite road users of all ages, being traumitised, maimed or killed. I would point out that a pothole or defect on our roads do not discriminate between the different colour of skin or beliefs and even the greens are safer at work than travelling to or from it.
7

Dave,

Western Isles 07/11/2008 08:09:38
Hmmm, let me see. Roads have increased by 1.1%. From the £42 billion or so taken from the motorist every year, 1% of it has actually been spent on the roads, the rest has magically vapourised.

This was reported very recently in this very newspaper so the greens last lie at the bottom is guff. Total guff.

THE GREENS ARE LIARS.
8

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 07/11/2008 08:44:32
Cars are essential, especially in rural areas. Greens, fortunately are not.

However you'd think they'd been elected in droves judging by the amount of noise they make. Dangerous, anti-economy people who'd rather see you starve than permit efficient transport.
9

Lianachan,

Highlands 07/11/2008 08:56:30
Living in a remote location as I do, I am reliant entirely on my car anytime I want to go anywhere or do anything - including going to work, and buying food. I am absolutely sick to death of being hit in the pocket by measures apparently designed to put people off driving their kids 500 yards to school in a city (although probably actually designed to drag more money out of people). The most vigorous anti-car green should poke his head out of the city, to where the ground actually IS green, and he'll see how realistic a notion it is to have everybody use public transport all the time. There's none at all that I can use.
10

John south of Soutra,

07/11/2008 08:58:27
Of course the Greens never use anything misleading do they
11

Mad Jock,

East Lothian 07/11/2008 09:46:01
Where do the Greens get their ideas from? A new road fills up with traffic because the road was needed in the first place,and because the original route was congested. No one buys a car because a new road has been built, and no one travels an unnecessary distance just to use a new road.
If you want to find the underlying cause of increased traffic, look to the Credit Crunch. Access to cheap, easy loans has allowed people to buy a car that they would otherwise have been unable to afford.
On a free flowing road, with no roadworks, artificial bottlenecks or badly phased traffic lights, there is little congestion. It is only when traffic on a busy road is delayed that congestion occurs. Delays are often caused by poor road design, such as the Edinburgh City Bypass. Sheriffhall roundabout is a good example. The congestion there was appalling, yet if a flyover had been built in the first place, there would have been no congestion. The (costly) modification has eased the situation somewhat, but begs the question; why was this not done in the first place?
However, congested though the bypass is, imagine what traffic in Edinburgh would be like without it. Imagine trying to drive to Inverness through Perth, Pitlochry, Newtonmore, Kingussie, Aviemore, instead of bypassing them as we do now.
Conversely, look what happens to traffic in Edinburgh when arterial roads are blocked by major roadworks, such as those caused by the trams contruction.
12

paulr,

edinburgh 07/11/2008 10:34:05
Green,
the colour of envy
the colour of sea sickness
the colour of old hospital wards.............
13

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 10:51:46
"I don't think I've seen such a dodgy dossier since the one used to justify war on Iraq."

Oh yes we have McLaren... It's called your stupid propaganda campaign. Shut up and go away until you get yourself educated.

"A MOTORING group has attempted to explode the "myths" of road-building, a move which has triggered scorn from environmentalists."

Of course it would. The "environMENTALists" would take umbrage at any suggestion of truth that might rain on their parade.
14

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 12:40:10
What lovely people.
15

Unimpressed one,

07/11/2008 12:48:00
Membership of the RAC far outnumbers membership of the green party. So in a democracy the greens' opinion doesn't count.
16

Matt there,

Somewhere 07/11/2008 12:52:50
So, The RAC Foundation wants lots more roads built.

Surely this would be the aim of an organisation under the control of the road building industry, rather than that of the voice of the motorist? Oh! Right enough!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.