M4 Newport : Edwina's Response

With Edwina Hart responding to Assembly committee concerns and a legal
challenge imminent, it's worth drawing a picture of where the battle lines are.
(Pic : South Wales Argus)

• Welsh Government's reprioritised National Transport Plan (7.12.11)
• M4 Newport consultation and rail upgrades in Gwent (11.3.12)
• A Cunning Infrastructure Plan (26.5.12)
• Newport's M4 coronary bypass (5.10.13)
• Cold and drafty Wales Bill (7.1.14)
• Newport's M4 debate painted black and blue (10.7.14)
• Newport M4 - Smell the Glove (17.7.14)
• Newport M4 : The Committee Strikes Back (21.7.14)

There's been a bit more news on the £1billion Newport bypass front. As some of you will remember, the National Assembly's Environment & Sustainability Committee wrote to the minister in charge, Edwina Hart (Lab, Gower), back in July setting out a number of concerns.

In the last week or so, Edwina has responded to the Committee (pdf).

In the interests of balance - and to ensure that everyone can go into this fully informed - it's worth taking a look at what the Minister said in response to the Committee's letter, and how she came to justify the decision on the Welsh Government's behalf.

Additionally, Friends of the Earth Cymru officially launched their legal challenge – via a judicial review – on Tuesday (23rd September).

The route selection process

Committee : In the first consultation (2011-12 M4CEM), a completely new motorway wasn't included as an option. The change in heart since suggests the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process hasn't been followed correctly.

Edwina Hart : The Welsh Government used their "appropriate and recognised" WelTAG guidance process (pdf - large file). What's considered a reasonable alternative route under the SEA process is down to the decision-maker, but the SEA also allows a choice based on the objectives the decision-maker wants to meet. The Minister admits that the new fiscal powers offered by Westminster prompted a revisit to a full M4 bypass of Newport as an option.

The choice of route

Committee : The route choices for an M4 bypass were too similar to each other to "allow a meaningful comparison as required by the SEA directive". It also hasn't been made clear whether the Blue Route has been fully assessed by the Welsh Government to SEA standards.

Edwina Hart : None of the alternatives were considered "reasonable alternatives" in line with SEA regulations. She says the Blue Route wouldn't have been "sufficiently attractive to relieve M4 traffic", would cost £600million (rather than the £380million estimate) and would cause problems at connecting roads. It would also require significant land acquisition, and wouldn't meet the strategic objectives.

The environmental report

Committee : Natural Resources Wales (NRW) say some of the concerns they raised weren't included in the final environment report. NRW flatly disagree with many of the conclusions in said report, which underplayed the impact on biodiversity, and provided incomplete assessments of greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, landscape and town scape impacts.

Edwina Hart : Environmental concerns and possible mitigation measures have been taken into account during the Environmental Impact Assessment process. NRW's comments were taken into consideration during the drafting of the environmental report.

Consideration of public transport

Committee : Possible public transport options and the South Wales Metro scheme haven't been given full consideration. They should've been weighted directly alongside the M4 proposals as they could have a big impact on the underlying case for a bypass.

Edwina Hart : The M4 bypass will complement the South Wales Metro scheme, but increased public transport use won't solve the problems on the M4. Studies undertaken during the planning process showed that even if public transport use increased by 100%, it would only reduce Newport M4 traffic by 5% (Owen : I'm presuming this is because of the number of lorries using the M4).

Validity of traffic forecasts

Committee : Traffic forecasts on the M4 are produced using the UK's Department for Transport (DfT) forecasting methodology, but this methodology has – according to leading academics – predicted big growths in traffic volumes and car ownership when levels have actually remained flat. If traffic growth doesn't match the DfT's unreliable forecasts then the M4 bypass will be a waste of money. So the case for a bypass is partly reliant on traffic increasing.

Edwina Hart : Traffic volumes have returned to pre-recession levels after levelling off during the recesson itself. A new report on the traffic projection figures has been included on the Newport M4 website (pdf). She believes claims that current traffic projections mean a bypass won't improve traffic flows are "incorrect", and the plans are a "sustainable, long-term solution to the problems."

Costs

Committee : The proposed capital borrowing limit as set out in the Wales Bill (£500million) is only half the estimated total cost of the scheme. Therefore, there's a lack of clarity on how future borrowing powers would be used, and the impact the bypass would have on finances available for transport projects like the Metro. The Committee say it's "difficult to conclude....that a convincing case for the long-term value for money of this investment has been made".

Edwina Hart : The £1billion price tag includes the costs of environmental mitigation measures. Before the Welsh Government commits to construction, the cost estimates will be carefully managed, and the aim will be to reduce costs wherever possible. It's claimed every £1 spent will result in a £2.29 economic return. The Welsh Government won't be committing all of their borrowing powers to the scheme, as they'll use block grant/capital funding too; though it's too early to say precisely how the scheme would be financed, as it depends on the final cost.

I think it's safe to say that we now have a more complete picture of both sides of the argument.

The minister has given some concise and assured answers to the Committee's questions, with the exception of her response to the traffic projection figures.

Those figures are the statistical case for the bypass, and although Edwina linked to the figures themselves, the fact she brushed the issue off with a political back swing (talk of "long term solutions" and "sustainability") tells me that's where the big weakness is in the case, and will probably be one part of Friends of the Earth Cymru's legal line of attack.

I'll let you make your own mind up.

Read More

M4 Newport - The Committee Strikes Back

It's the committee report AMs couldn't wait to read, containing heavy
criticism of the Welsh Government's decision on the M4 around Newport.
(Pic : transportxtra.com)

The saga from the start :

• Welsh Government's reprioritised National Transport Plan (7.12.11)
• M4 Newport consultation and rail upgrades in Gwent (11.3.12)
• A Cunning Infrastructure Plan (26.5.12)
• Newport's M4 coronary bypass (5.10.13)
• Cold and drafty Wales Bill (7.1.14)
• Newport's M4 debate painted black and blue (10.7.14)
• Newport M4 - Smell the Glove (17.7.14)

It's led to rows, hypocrisy, (minor) backbench rebellions, and has turned out to be one of the more controversial committee inquiries in the Assembly's short history.

Towards the end of last week, the National Assembly's Environment and Sustainability Committee published their eagerly-anticipated report into the decision-making process which led to the announcement, on July 16^th , that the £1billion M4 "Black Route" around Newport will be given the go-ahead.

The report itself (pdf) is short and to the point compared to other Assembly committee reports, and well worth a look regardless of your opinion on the M4 bypass scheme itself.

From the outset, the Committee say they were disappointed that neither the minister in charge, Edwina Hart (Lab, Gower), or the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) – one of the biggest cheerleaders for the bypass – appeared before them to give oral evidence.

The Committee have "grave concerns" about the consultation process which led to the Black Route being selected, but they stress that they make no observations on the "merits of any particular route". They believe that had the minister properly engaged with them, many of those concerns would've been addressed.

The Committee subsequently made a single recommendation; that Edwina Hart answers all of the questions and concerns raised in their letter to her on June 5^th (pdf).

They go on to say that if the minister can't answer their questions to their satisfaction, then consideration should be given to restarting the public consultation process to ensure that all concerns (below) are taken into account and that all alternatives to the Black Route are considered.

The Committee's Concerns

                          

The route selection process – It's questioned whether the process of choosing a route met the EU's Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) directive. In the first consultation (2011-12 M4CEM), a completely new motorway wasn't included as an option. Then, it was included as an option in the second consultation carried out in 2013-14. This suggests the SEA process hasn't been followed correctly, as the sudden change in heart on the need for a bypass would contradict the environmental reports issued alongside each consultation.

The choice between purple, red and black routes (2013 consultation) – The choices on offer with regard a route for an M4 bypass were too similar to each other to "allow a meaningful comparison as required by the SEA directive". It also hasn't been made clear whether the Blue Route has been fully assessed by the Welsh Government to SEA standards.

The environmental report – Natural Resources Wales (NRW) say some of the concerns they raised weren't included in the final environment report. NRW flatly disagree with many of the conclusions in said report, which underplayed the impact on biodiversity, and provided incomplete assessments of  greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, landscape and townscape impacts.

Consideration of public transport (or lack of) – Possible public transport options and the South Wales Metro scheme haven't been given full consideration. They should've been weighted directly alongside the M4 proposals as they could have a big impact on the underlying case for a bypass.

Validity of traffic forecasts – Traffic forecasts on the M4 are produced using the UK's Department for Transport (DfT) forecasting methodology. However, in the past this methodology has – according to leading academics – predicted big growths in traffic volumes and car ownership when levels have actually remained flat. There should've been a more flexible traffic prediction methodology based around varying scenarios, but it's not something the Welsh Government can do themselves as DfT are very protective of their forecasting models. If traffic growth doesn't match the DfT's unreliable forecasts then the M4 bypass will be a waste of money. So the case for a bypass is partly reliant on traffic increasing. That's very "unsustainable".

Costs – It's unclear if environmental mitigation measures, or the future of the A4810 Steelworks Road, have been factored in to the estimated costs of the Black Route. Also, the proposed capital borrowing limit as set out in the Wales Bill (£500million) is only half the estimated total cost of the scheme. Therefore, there's a lack of clarity on how future borrowing powers would be used, and the impact the bypass would have on finances available for transport projects like the Metro. The Committee say it's "difficult to conclude....that a convincing case for the long-term value for money of this investment has been made".

Executive Decisions demand Executive Answers

There's no obligation on ministers to follow through on any recommendations made by an Assembly committee - it's just a good idea to do so. If Edwina Hart wants to ignore this she can, though it would probably make it more difficult for the Welsh Government to win any legal challenge (if it goes that far), as it looks like the Welsh Government haven't gone about this in a professional way and are washing their hands with democratic scrutiny.

Without question, something has to be done to the roads in and around Newport. I'm not blinkered enough to think the solution lies in public transport and "active travel" alone.
 
But you get the impression the Welsh Government wanted a new M4 from the start, they just realised they couldn't afford it. As soon as borrowing powers came into the picture – fuelled by the enthusiasm from Whitehall to give Wales "fiscal responsibility" – the Welsh Government decided to press forward with this while they still had a window of opportunity.

So we ended up with a public consultation that was effectively based around three minor variations of a single option and what appear to be "sexed-up dossiers".

Edwina Hart has done the position of economy minister proud so far, so it would be a real shame if she ends up pushing through something she may later come to regret. Maybe a bypass really is the right option, but it has to be handled conscientiously. That clearly hasn't happened.

This is one of the single largest capital investments in Welsh history, standing at the equivalent of about 65% of the Welsh Government's total annual capital budget. It's serious stuff that deserves proper answers from the minister before anyone can think of getting the project underway.

Read More

Newport's M4 debate painted black and blue

Black bypass or Blue upgrade?
There's been more debate recently over the "Newport Question".
(Pic : BBC Wales)

In recent weeks, the debate over possible solutions to the "Newport Question" – What measures need to be taken to relieve pressure on the M4? - briefly heated up.

As you'll know, the current proposals (Newport's M4 coronary bypass) include building a brand new M4 bypass ("Black Route") using the borrowing powers outlined in the Wales Bill. The consultation has closed as far as I can tell, but the bypass is the preferred option of both Welsh and UK Governments.

However, a rival option has emerged courtesy of transport expert Prof. Stuart Cole called the "Blue Route" (pdf). This wouldn't involve the construction of a new M4 bypass, but would instead upgrade the existing steelworks road and A48 to the south of the city itself - more from Plaid Monmouth and Click on Wales.

Black vs Blue illustrated
(Taken from Google Earth - click to enlarge)

The Black Route

Supporters

• Welsh Government/Welsh Labour (as a "preferred route")
• Welsh Conservatives
• UK Government
• Newport City Council (Labour-controlled)
• Newport residents (South Wales Argus poll putting support at 69% [Jan 2014])
• Confederation of Business and Industry (CBI)
• Institute of Civil Engineers Wales

Proposals (as outlined)

A complete bypass of Newport stretching from Magor to Castleton (Junction 23a-Junction 29), built to three-lane motorway standard. It would pass south of the current steelworks road, cutting across northern edge of the Gwent Levels. Then, it passes through Newport Docks via a new crossing of the River Usk, travels south of Duffryn, before rejoining the M4 at Castleton, where it'll also tie in with the A48(M) which goes directly to Cardiff City Centre. As yet it's uncertain whether this new stretch of the M4 would be tolled or not, or what format the crossing of the Usk will take (tunnel or bridge).

Advantages

• Significantly increased capacity – It'll be wider than the existing stretch of the M4 through Newport and will include hard shoulders throughout its length. There'll also be fewer access points, meaning local traffic won't be weaving in and out trying to cross the city.
• Less disruption - It'll be constructed as a completely new "offline" route, with minimal disruption to current traffic.
• Big economic boost – It's said it would have the maximum impact in terms of economic activity, having a positive impact on logistics businesses and in terms of access to and from markets in south Wales. I haven't been able to find any raw figures, however.

Disadvantages

• It'll cost ~ £1billion – That's a hell of a lot of (borrowed) money for an ~11 mile stretch of motorway. You have to question if this is "taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut" (c/o Syniadau). There are disputes over the projected traffic figures which hint that the numbers used to support the Black Route are over-estimated, and car usage has "plateaued". This dispute could open the door to a lengthy and costly legal challenge.
• It might be tolled – I'm not sure if this has been completely ruled out or not, but you've got to wonder where the Welsh Government are going to get the funds to pay back the borrowing. It's not like there's a franchise charge like the railways. Experience from the UK's only toll motorway around Birmingham shows that tolling puts drivers off using it. If the Severn Bridge tolls are used to pay for the new M4 instead then it could prolong the use of high tolls there.
• Significant environmental impact – Although it's likely air quality will improve around the current M4, the Black Route crosses through the Gwent Levels – and several sites of special scientific interest – and is likely to produce significant amounts of carbon emissions just through its construction. "Sustainable" it ain't.

The Blue Route

Supporters

• Institute of Welsh Affairs (who sponsored/authored the report with Prof. Stuart Cole, University of South Wales)
• Plaid Cymru
• Welsh Liberal Democrats
• Green Party of EnglandandWales
• Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)
• Institute of Directors
• Friends of the Earth Cymru (tentative support)
• Gwent Wildlife Trust (tentative support)

Proposals (as outlined)

Described as a combination of the existing A48 Southern Distributor Road with the A4810 steelworks road (which was bought for £7.7million by the Welsh Government in 2010 and upgraded), the Blue Route runs from Junction 23a in Magor through to Junction 28 at Tredegar Park. It also includes a stretch of the A48 from the Coldra interchange (Junction 24).

All these roads would be upgraded to a four-lane dual carriageway motorway standard, and existing traffic light junctions and roundabouts along the route would be replaced by motorway-style grade separated junctions. The report says there should be enough room to expand to three-lanes in the future if required.

Advantages

• It's cheaper and quicker to build – The Blue Route is estimated to cost £380million, saving at least £600million compared to the Black Route. That £600million could be spent on public transport improvements, and would go a long way to funding things like the South Wales Metro. Prof. Cole also estimates that the Blue Route could be completed by 2018 (more likely to be the early 2020s, IMO), while the Black Route could take until 2031 to be finished.
• Almost completely avoids the Gwent Levels – A huge environmental plus point is that it only skirts the edge of the Gwent Levels and would mostly be constructed along existing road corridors.
• It'll still be constructed to motorway standards – It'll just be a two-lane motorway instead of three-lane. It'll still increase overall motorway capacity and is only one lane narrower than the Black Route.

Disadvantages

• It'll cause more disruption during construction – You could easily see roads across southern Newport closed or restricted for several months at a time as the Blue Route is built. This could cause problems along the current A48 in addition to all the problems on the current M4. If both diversionary routes suffered major disruption at the same time that would be the equivalent of a fatal heart attack to south Wales transport.
• Too many junctions could create more bottlenecks – Some of the existing problems with local traffic using the M4 to get from one part of Newport to another will simply shift to the Blue Route. While you can even argue that because it's to the quiet south of the city it might not attract enough local traffic at all.
• The grade separation of existing junctions could be difficult – Looking along the route on Google Earth you can see that there's not much room to fit full blown grade-separated junctions in without creating junctions similar in style to that of Junction 41 in Port Talbot. It'll be an engineering challenge and could be an unforeseen cost as there's no detailed plan of the Blue Route available yet.

Plaid's Premature Presentation?

AMs often complain that their committee work isn't given the attention or respect it deserves.
So why did Plaid Cymru preempt an inquiry by a committee one of their own AMs chairs?
(Pic : National Assembly of Wales)

The National Assembly's Environment and Sustainability Committee – chaired by Alun Ffred Jones AM (Plaid, Arfon) - are currently undertaking an inquiry into the Newport M4 plans.

On 5^th June, they sent a letter (pdf) to Business & Economy Minister, Edwina Hart (Lab, Gower), expressing concerns about the environmental impact of the Black Route and asking her to outline how and why the Welsh Government decided to prefer it over other options.

I should point out that plans to completely bypass Newport have been in place since at least 2004 (pdf), and the Black Route is a continuation of those plans.

A few weeks later, Plaid Cymru publicly threw their backing behind the Blue Route, using their weekly debate in the National Assembly on 18th June to call upon the Welsh Government to rule out the Black Route on value for money and environmental grounds.

With the committee inquiry yet to report back, some AMs questioned the timing of Plaid's debate. During First Minister's Questions on 17^th June, Carwyn Jones said :

"What I find farcical is that the....Committee is looking at the M4 at the moment, the Chair has sent a letter to the Minister, and we have a debate tomorrow prejudging the entire issue.....It calls into question the committee’s entire proceedings in that regard. Why on earth have committee proceedings when, half way through, a party makes its own mind up? That makes no sense at all. "

Both the person who led the debate - Plaid's economy spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth AM (Plaid, Ynys Mon) - and Eluned Parrott AM (Lib Dem, South Wales Central) defended opposition parties' right to scrutinise the government whenever they choose. Eluned was less forthcoming when it came to the timing however, suggesting it was "serendipitous" that the debate coincided with the publication of the letter to Edwina Hart from Alun Ffred Jones laying out the committee's concerns.

Mick Antoniw AM (Lab, Pontypridd) – a member of the Environment Committee – went further, saying it was, "imprudent and highly irresponsible....asking the Assembly to adopt a position on the issue....before we have completed our inquiry". Mick was exaggerating things but he has a point. The correct term is predetermination (c/o Tim Kerr QC).

Two days after the debate, Edwina Hart wrote back to the committee (pdf) saying that as there was a formal ongoing decision-making process she was unable to give further evidence to them. I'm sure the preempting of the committee report gave her an excuse not to as well.

Committee work is often held in high regard by AMs (and myself), so I doubt I'm the only person disappointed that Plaid chose to go about this in the manner that they did. The Blue Route deserved to be treated with a bit more care, as it isn't the be all and end all it's being made out to be. It has problems of its own.

You would expect all AMs, from all parties, to approach major issues like this objectively. Committee inquiries are often the main avenue by which to form an objective opinion after lengthy written and oral evidence submission, followed by cross-party deliberation. Having a committee report backing your party view is therefore very important in terms of forming an argument. In this case Plaid come across as impatient and intellectually lazy.

Although it's no secret that Plaid oppose the Black Route and have done for some time - it was Ieuan Wyn Jones who put a halt to the original plans - it's like telling the Assembly, "We've made our mind up without considering all of the evidence - even from a committee one of our own AMs chairs. Now we expect you to as well".

Considering he's a consummate parliamentarian, I'm sure that if Dafydd Elis-Thomas AM (Plaid, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) were still chair of the Environment Committee he would never have allowed this debate to go ahead. He abstained during the vote on the motion.

Plaid's motion supporting the Blue Route was comprehensively altered and rejected, after Labour were (seemingly) whipped into not voting on the motion at all due to the minister's "ongoing decision-making process". The Tories were never going to back it so it sunk.

I'm not aiming criticism at anyone in particular because Plaid aren't the only party that do this; the Tories preempted an ongoing tourism inquiry with their own debate last week, while Labour tried something similar in relation to the Williams Commission. Plaid have also shown recently - via their sport discussion paper and others - that they do take committee inquiries into account when presenting an argument or coming up with new policies. I don't see why it had to be different this time.

Sadly, Plaid have form when it comes to adopting positions or taking decisions without considering all of the evidence. Bad habits like these can become a political party's dark side if they're not careful.

UPDATE 16/07/14 : Well there you have it; the Black Route has won. The Welsh Government made the announcement that it was to go ahead earlier today.

I'll give credit to Edwina Hart in that she doesn't muck about, and she justified the decision based on the consultation evidence alone. But any moral high ground Welsh Labour might've had after Plaid's preempting of the committee inquiry has just evaporated, making the First Minister and Mick Antoniw look silly after their righteous indignation a few weeks ago.

There might still be time for this decision to be reconsidered, and the Environment Committee are yet to report back on their inquiry. What I fear now is that this project is going to suck up a significant portion of Welsh transport spending, and the South Wales Metro - which could probably be completed in 10 years - is now going to become a 30-40 year "generational" project.

As I said last week, "sustainability" is meaningless in Welsh politics.

UPDATE 17/07/14 : A new post covering all the developments and the politicial fallout - Newport M4 - Smell the Glove

Read More