a. A new dual carriageway to the south of Huntingdon between Ellington and Fen Drayton with three lanes in each direction (except between Ellington and the A1, where only two lanes would be needed).

b. Widening the existing A14 to at least three lanes in each direction between Fen Drayton and Fen Ditton.

c. Local access roads alongside the widened A14 to separate local and strategic traffic, creating a total of ten lanes in the section immediately north west of Cambridge.

d. Major new interchanges with the A1 at Brampton, the existing A14 at Fen Drayton, and the M11/A428 at Girton. 

The planned timetable was:

a. Autumn 2009. Publication of Draft Orders and Environmental Statement. These have now been published.

b. 2010. Public enquiry (if required).

c. 2011. Start of building work (subject to the availability of funding).

d. Building work is likely to take around five to six years.

However, on January 17th 2010 the Government announced that the project would be immediately suspended, and would be referred for consideration to the Spending Review over the coming weeks and months. This suspension formed part of a wider suspension of 12 projects with a total value of £8.5bn.

A DISCREDITED APPROACH

For fifty years the standard approach to reducing congestion and accidents has been to build more and wider roads on a 'predict and provide' basis. But that approach has become discredited for several reasons:

a. Carbon emissions. Major road building schemes increase carbon emissions in at least three ways: the generation of additional traffic, the carbon emissions associated with the materials (notably concrete) used in construction, and the reduction in carbon absorption through the concreting over of agricultural land. This is not disputed by the Highways Agency who explain that it is not part of their remit to reduce carbon emissions. Ten years ago, when schemes such as the A14 improvement were conceived, carbon reduction was not a priority. Today it is. 

b. Cost. The enormous and growing cost of major road building projects. The forecast cost of the present A14 improvement proposals has risen from £490m in 2005 to £1.2bn in 2009. These sort of costs are difficult to justify at a time of acute crisis in the public finances.

c. Delay. Major road building projects are very slow to deliver benefits, because they can take anything up to 20 years from conception to completion. They also cause serious disruption during construction.

d. Environmental damage. Major road building projects, however carefully designed, do serious damage to the environment and to the amenity of those living and working nearby. This damage arises from loss of green space and habitat, severance of communities, air pollution, and noise nuisance. And unlike a bypass, which can reduce traffic flowing into a town, the A14 improvement proposals will increase car traffic flowing into Cambridge - contradicting local transport policies.

OUR ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

The main aims of the A14 expansion scheme are to reduce accidents, to reduce congestion caused by accidents and breakdowns, and to increase capacity to cope with the forecast growth in traffic - particularly east-west freight traffic.

We believe that an alternative approach, based on traffic management measures instead of road building, offers a way of achieving these objectives while reducing (instead of increasing) carbon emissions, and at much lower cost. Our alternative approach has four elements: Electronic Traffic Management, Free Rescue Service, Lorry Congestion Charge, and Improvements to Public Transport & Rail.

ELECTRONIC TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

Examples of electronic traffic management systems, which have proved to have great benefits in terms of accident reduction and some benefit in terms of increased traffic throughput, are:
 

a. Variable Mandatory Speed Limits (VMSL). VMSL systems (shown above) use electronic signs on gantries to vary the mandatory speed limit from the normal 70 mph, to 60 mph, 50 mph, 40 mph, or 30 mph. This variation, managed from a control centre, takes account of traffic conditions, weather conditions, time of day, traffic incidents and lane closures. VMSL systems have been in use on the M25 since 1995, and are described as a success by the Highways Agency. They reduce congestion, provide more reliable journey times, reduce the frequency of accidents, reduce carbon emissions, and reduce driver stress. They are now being extended to other parts of the UK, for example on further sections of the M25, and on the M4 in South East Wales. Their cost is a fraction of the cost of road building. The 13km section of the M4 in Wales will cost £7m, equivalent to £21m for the Ellington to Fen Ditton section of the A14.

b. Average Speed Cameras. Average speed cameras, known as SPECS, enforce speed limits by recording a vehicle (using automatic number plate recognition) at two points and working out its average speed. This avoids the problem, with conventional speed cameras, that the vehicle can speed up between cameras. SPECS systems have been installed on the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon, and have contributed to an encouraging reduction in accidents. In 2008 (up to September 22nd) there were 3 deaths, 5 injuries, and 11 accidents not involving injuries on the Ellington to Fen Ditton section of the A14. In the same period of 2009 this reduced to zero deaths, 3 injuries, and 4 accidents not involving injuries.

c. Anti Tailgating Measures. Tailgating is the term used to describe driving at speed too close to the vehicle in front. Research by the Highways Agency shows that tailgating is a contributory factor in more than one third of all personal injury accidents on UK motorways. It is also a contributor to stress. The Highway Code recommends a gap of at least 2 seconds; USA highway authorities recommend a gap of at least 3 seconds. But some drivers will leave as little as a half-second gap. This is extremely dangerous because it gives the driver very little time to react to the unexpected. Cameras are now available which can detect and record tailgaters so that they can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention. A complementary approach, adopted on parts of the M11, is the painting of '2-second chevrons' on the road surface.

d. Variable Message Signs (VMS). VMS systems consist of large electronic signs onto which messages to drivers can be sent from a control centre. The Highways Agency is starting to install Variable Message Signs, associated with traffic queue detection loops, on parts of the A14. Closed Circuit TV will also be installed at strategic locations. The system is intended to improve safety and reduce congestion by warning drivers of queues close to junctions.

FREE RESCUE SERVICE

e. Improvements to public transport. These could include provision of additional Park & Ride facilities (for example in Huntingdon) to encourage commuters to switch from car to Guided Bus.

f. Improvements to rail freight. Improvements in east-west rail freight would encourage shift of containers from road to rail.

g. Improvements in cycling facilities. These could include providing a tarmac surface to the cycleway between Northstowe and Cambridge, cycleways between Bar Hill and Cambridge, and charging points to encourage the use of electric cycles.

AN ALTERNATIVE PACKAGE

There is a strong case for drawing up an alternative package of this kind and evaluating it against the current proposals. A £400m package might be allocated as follows:

a. £100m for Electronic Traffic Management systems.

b. £25m up front costs for the introduction of a Lorry Congestion Charge on the Ellington to Felixstowe section of the A14.

b. £50m for improvements to public transport (such as outlying Park & Ride facilities) and to cycling facilities.

c. £150m to encourage the shift of freight from the A14 to rail. This would include significant capital investment in improvements to the East-West freight line.

d. £75m for the replacement of the Huntingdon Viaduct, which is reaching the end of its safe life. 

The potential benefits of this sort of alternative package are that it would be:

a. Greener. Unlike the present proposals, which would increase carbon emissions, it would reduce carbon emissions - through lower speeds and lower traffic volumes. The carbon emissions from the production of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete would also be avoided. There would be reduced impact on wildlife and green space.

b. Cheaper. It need cost no more than £400m - a third of the cost of the current proposals.

c. Quicker. It could be implemented more quickly, without a compulsory purchase of land, and without five years of disruption during construction.