Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Welsh Road Building Projects Stopped After Failing Climate Review (theguardian.com) 92

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Dozens of road building projects across Wales have been halted or amended as part of a "groundbreaking" policy that reassessed more than 50 schemes against a series of tough tests on their impact on the climate emergency. From a report: Only 15 of the projects reviewed by an expert roads review panel will go ahead in their original form, with others scaled back, postponed or in some cases shelved. Lee Waters, the deputy climate change minister in the Labour-led Welsh government, described the decisions as "groundbreaking" and green campaigners characterised the administration's approach as "world-leading."

Waters accepted the policy would attract criticism from some. "It's always difficult to make decisions with short-term pain for long-term gain," he said. However, he insisted a "llwybr newydd" (new path) was needed. "We will not get to net zero unless we stop doing the same thing over and over," he said. Among the projects halted are a third Menai Bridge linking Anglesey and the mainland while a controversial "red route" scheme in Flintshire, north Wales, a major new road that threatened ancient woodland and wildflower meadows, will not go ahead as planned.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Welsh Road Building Projects Stopped After Failing Climate Review More

Welsh Road Building Projects Stopped After Failing Climate Review

Comments Filter:

  • Concrete is a huge contributor to greenhouse gases (Score:3)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Thursday February 16, 2023 @04:25PM (#63299669)
    We need to go back to mud roads!
    • British road building don't routinely use the "poured slab" technique which is, I believe, the norm in America. But that is nothing to do with the greenhouse gas footprint of concrete and everything to do with providing a slightly flexible, porous road surface.

      Different conditions ; different solutions.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        the "poured slab" technique which is, I believe, the norm in America

        Not really. Local roads are mainly asphalt (bitumen macadam). Except where they've had to tear that out and pour concrete slabs along bus routes.

      • British road building don't routinely use the "poured slab" technique which is, I believe, the norm in America. But that is nothing to do with the greenhouse gas footprint of concrete and everything to do with providing a slightly flexible, porous road surface.

        Different conditions ; different solutions.

        We primarily use asphalt for roads, driveways, and parking lots. Concrete is used for sidewalks and walkways.

    • he insisted a "llwybr newydd" (new path) was needed

      He further went on to say "sm bstrd stl th fckn cnsnnt kys frm my lptp!".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
        You've confused vowels and consonants there. Y can be a vowel in English, and Welsh chooses to use w (double u) for a specific vowel sound, so in Welsh, it's a vowel. I did appreciate the humour, though.

        • You've confused vowels and consonants there. Y can be a vowel in English, and Welsh chooses to use w (double u) for a specific vowel sound, so in Welsh, it's a vowel. I did appreciate the humour, though.

          Don't be a pedantic twit. That post was funny as hell! Where are my mod points when I need them?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            If they'd used "vwls" rather than "cnsnts" I wouldn't have commented. But even funnier, in Welsh "vwls" would have a vowel, so it would need to be "vls".

      • he insisted a "llwybr newydd" (new path) was needed

        He further went on to say "sm bstrd stl th fckn cnsnnt kys frm my lptp!".

        Correction...it should have been "sm bstrd stl th fckn vwl kys frm my lptp!"

        • he insisted a "llwybr newydd" (new path) was needed

          He further went on to say "sm bstrd stl th fckn cnsnnt kys frm my lptp!".

          Correction...it should have been "sm bstrd stl th fckn vwl kys frm my lptp!"

          Now I am being pedantic. LOL

      • vwl kys, nt cnsnnt kys!

  • This is exactly the sort of program that America needs to rein in state and federal departments of transportation.

    These entities operate on long term plans guided by phony future volume forecasts, road condition grading, minimal oversight, and bloated budgets. These elements basically give the road construction - government industrial complex carte blanche to keep building and expanding roads, paying lip service to induced demand, externalities of roads/autos/construction, and alternative modes of transit.

    • Re:exactly what America needs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Thursday February 16, 2023 @04:39PM (#63299719) Homepage

      These elements basically give the road construction - government industrial complex carte blanche to keep building and expanding roads, paying lip service to induced demand, externalities of roads/autos/construction, and alternative modes of transit.

      Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps there are those of us in America who actually prefer having private transportation? Having a car means I don't have to live with a neighbor right up my ass in order to be close to public transit, I can come and go as I please on my own schedule, I get to pick the music and the climate control settings, and I can limit my exposure to people who believe being out in public gives them carte blanche to spread the airborne pathogen du jour.

      • These elements basically give the road construction - government industrial complex carte blanche to keep building and expanding roads, paying lip service to induced demand, externalities of roads/autos/construction, and alternative modes of transit.

        Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps there are those of us in America who actually prefer having private transportation? Having a car means I don't have to live with a neighbor right up my ass in order to be close to public transit, I can come and go as I please on my own schedule, I get to pick the music and the climate control settings, and I can limit my exposure to people who believe being out in public gives them carte blanche to spread the airborne pathogen du jour.

        We could always invest in public transit and make it good enough to make the Euros jealous.
        Wont happen. Too much power wrapped in car and oil companies. Just the way they planned.

        • Nah, I live in California. The state government would just take the money for the construction, hire people they know, claim it's all green, and produce nothing. See high speed rail as an example.

          • Nah, I live in California. The state government would just take the money for the construction, hire people they know, claim it's all green, and produce nothing. See high speed rail as an example.

            +1 Insightful...if I had mod points

        • We could always invest in public transit and make it good enough to make the Euros jealous.

          You might want to do studies in the US, to see how many people would actually want AND use increased public transport.

          I have a feeling in extreme urban areas, sure you'd get good uptake, but in the rest of the US, I don't see that much demand for it.

          I'd certainly never use it...why should I ? I have a car and motorcycle to come and go as I please, and on the times I don't want to drive...Uber.

          All of my solutions a

      • There's plenty of road for private transportation already. Building more freeway lanes (or indeed freeways) only leads to them being fully utilized within short periods, and traffic volume increasing such that they provide only temporary relief. Public transportation does not even have to mean shared conveyances, with modern technology we could build elevated PRT at a fraction of the cost of roadways plus the cars that drive on them which in fact not only means not having to share cars with other riders, bu

        • Public transportation does not even have to mean shared conveyances

          It could, but generally the established public transit industries make sure the politicians believe their only choices are more buses and trains. There's wishful thinking, and then there's what would actually be implemented. More public transit in the USA, more often than not, means slow inconvenient trains, or slow, diesel-belching buses.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            Buses and trains are the options which allow both cheaper travel for the consumer (mostly, TCO) and a profit. If it was all personal pods, it would make more sense to buy a car and drive. Thus, there is very little market for personal pods. The market says buses make sense, and we have buses.

            • If it was all personal pods, it would make more sense to buy a car and drive.

              The total cost of such a system would be lower.

              The market says buses make sense, and we have buses.

              Buses are shit for transport. They do two orders of magnitude more road damage than vans, they perturb traffic, they have to follow limited routes since there are so many roads they can't really operate on, and they produce an assload of tire dust since they are so heavy and have such big tires (a 22.5" truck tire is 41" in diameter, and 8-10 inches wide at the tread!) and the only reason we use them is because one driver can operate them and move around dozens

              • Do buses produce more tyre debris per person-mile than cars? And if buses are bad for roads we'd better ban trucks.

                • Do buses produce more tyre debris per person-mile than cars?

                  Doubt it. They still make a bunch. Cars are really really bad, buses are just really bad.

                  And if buses are bad for roads we'd better ban trucks.

                  They are also a problem.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

                    Do buses produce more tyre debris per person-mile than cars?

                    Doubt it. They still make a bunch..

                    Right, so then in the case of this sort of pollution, buses are better.

              • If autonomous cara will destroy buses, then the economics of autonomous buses with lower fuel costs per passenger mile on busy routes will do even better. Rails are great, if there are rails, but since you most likely have rail outside your house but not rails, then rail is not going to eclipse buses entirely. I live fairly close to a good rail link and a bus route, but if I want to get to the next villages, the railway won't help me much in three of four cases as it doesn't go there, nor is it ever likely

                • This is why you have to start with PRT in city centers and work your way outwards. You use it to link the city centers to parking, and other transit like BRT.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

                    This is why you have to start with PRT in city centers and work your way outwards. You use it to link the city centers to parking, and other transit like BRT.

                    It's not going to be cost effective given the flexibility of roads.

                    • Roads take an assload of maintenance and they cause problems just by existing. Yet, I'm not proposing to do away with them, merely to stop building more (more to the point, stop adding more lanes) and then one day, when we've shifted to PRT dominance, THEN we can start reducing them.

                      Let me also address this prior point

                      If autonomous cara will destroy buses, then the economics of autonomous buses with lower fuel costs per passenger mile on busy routes will do even better.

                      You are ignoring the cost of roads which can support buses, and the maintenance of those roads. You are ignoring the opportunity costs of buses, which don't have the flexibility of smaller veh

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
                      Yes, roads take effort and maintenance, as do any infrastructure. But, to allow people to have flexible transport options without needing lumps of metal and switchgear up to everyone's front door, which also has a huge issue since there are a lot of legacy vehicles which have to share the space, we're going to have roads for many decades to come. Or, put another way, tram lines to every house aren't happening, so any transport solution that would require them isn't happening. And that's even if you Could af

                    • But, to allow people to have flexible transport options without needing lumps of metal and switchgear up to everyone's front door

                      "Lumps of metal" is perhaps not a great description, but even so it might be better than "ribbons of artificial rock with a bunch of holes in it". But it would be quite some time before the rails (which ought to be elevated, though not very far in a residential context, both for a variety of reasons) reaches people's front doors. Most people would connect with a rail at a mall, transit center, or just a parking facility for the foreseeable future. Part of the appeal of PRT is that infrastructure is far ligh

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
                      Ah, untried magic technology not using conventional rails? That seems even more unlikely to happen. As noted, I like the idea of light rail, and also new technologies, but the cost of implementation per mile is high. Offering something nominally flexible that I have to go to a central location to get on to and is less efficient in energy terms, and thus more expensive than mass transit isn't likely to win a lot of adoption. So we're back to the fact that there's going to be a road outside my house, required

                    • Ah, untried magic technology not using conventional rails?

                      Literally none of the technology is new. This is why we can't have nice things.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
                      New at scale, unless there are examples of PRT I'm unaware of. We know buses can scale and are likely to have lower impacts than PRT and apps for some level of on demand responsiveness is also proven. I'm all for new tech where appropriate, but PRT doesn't scale in terms of environmental impact, space or cost.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 )

          There's plenty of road for private transportation already.

          Nope.

          Building more freeway lanes (or indeed freeways) only leads to them being

          Building more of ANYTHING useful leads to people using it. For example, the same principle applies to housing. You build housing? It becomes more expensive! You literally can't build enough housing to lower its price (barring 2008).

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            You are confusing short-term bubble dynamics with actual market forces. Plus, it's a very poor analogy.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Cyberax ( 705495 )
              Nope. I analyzed the database of all residential sales in the US for the last 25 years. I have not found a _single_ large location (>100k) where new construction resulted in short-term or long-term price decreases compared to surroundings. More often than not new construction _accelerates_ the price growth long-term.
              • You have causation and correlation backwards. Developments are green lit in areas because of significant demand as developers aren't going to build unless they can sell. That upswing in demand frequently exceeds the number of new units built. In addition, the desirability of a location, which includes the network effect of others finding it desirable and moving there will also drive prices up. What you actually need to look at is what prices would have been without the new builds, for example, rather than b

          • the same principle applies to housing. You build housing? It becomes more expensive! You literally can't build enough housing to lower its price

            You can, if you build small homes. But they're not profitable to build any more because of permitting schemes, so nobody does.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Cyberax ( 705495 )
              Apartments are still generally more expensive than houses (because they are built in expensive areas).

      • These are people who want to control others. They don't care about your freedom unless they can step on it. They want everyone to be as miserable as they are.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          People involved in road and town planning tend to be those who believe that they are doing things to maximise human well being. You might argue that they are sometimes misguided, but having met quite a few, at least in democracies, control for the sake of control is not their interest. Maybe there's a one in a hundred exception.

      • >> those of us in America who actually prefer having private transportation?
        The whole concept of USA style suburbs is rotten and not sustainable.

        • >> those of us in America who actually prefer having private transportation? The whole concept of USA style suburbs is rotten and not sustainable.

          Hey...so far, so good, eh?

          I mean, the modern area of suburbia is running like what, 70+ years now...and doing just fine?

          I really do not want to live where I have to share walls stacked on top of my neighbors like rats.

          It's good for some and more power to them, but many of us do not want that.

          Isn't it great to have a large, diverse country like the US wh

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You've shared your preference, but you should know... the rest of the world does not agree with you. Coming from a family that actively enjoys driving (even I enjoy it, to a limited extent) it was a real shock to learn that it was in fact a minority opinion.

        Certainly many do prefer driving, and cars and trucks and such will always be necessary for some people and the preference of others... but I know a great many people who find driving to be a terrifying experience and who resent being forced to have cars

      • Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps there are those of us in America who actually prefer having private transportation?

        And other people should pay the internal and externalised costs for your likes because...?

        • Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps there are those of us in America who actually prefer having private transportation?

          And other people should pay the internal and externalised costs for your likes because...?

          You act like there is a small minority of people in the US that have and enjoy private vehicles, riding on the backs of the oppressed majority that do not own or use private cars.....

          This is the US, those without private vehicles and don't use or want to use them are in the minority....li

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • You act like there is a small minority of people in the US[...]

            I understand why my firm grasp of reality requires you to invent a backstory for me so you don't need to think.

            Most people in the US have cars...so, most of the people are paying any internal/external costs.

            Well no. The costs are spread very unevenly, typically with more densely populated regions heavily subsidising the 'burbs. As are the externalised costs.

            This isn't Europe buddy. (Thankfully)

            Thankfully indeed, I say from a reluctant corner of

      • Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps there are those of us in America who actually prefer having private transportation? Having a car means I don't have to live with a neighbor right up my ass in order to be close to public transit, I can come and go as I please on my own schedule, I get to pick the music and the climate control settings, and I can limit my exposure to people who believe being out in public gives them carte blanche to spread the airborne pathogen du jour.

        Hear, Hear!!

        I couldn't have

    • "America" is a large and diverse country. I think it might be helpful to more specific about which urban areas you think would benefit from this. Actual new road building is otherwise not much of thing, at least out West where I live, and seems rare even in nearby cities, as there is already no space for it there.

    • What are you on about? Around here we never have enough capacity for traffic. Widen the roads and we still get congestion.

  • Time to just rebuild the Roman roads in Wales, using original construction materials and methods. And limit transport on the roads to what was available in those times....

    • Time to just rebuild the Roman roads in Wales, using original construction materials and methods. And limit transport on the roads to what was available in those times....

      That would an incredibly GREEN SOLUTION...except for the methane exhausted by the animals pulling the carts.

      Or are you also suggesting England return to the days of indentured servitude, land ownership by Lords only, teenagers being press-ganged into the Military, and so on ?

  • Wales has enough (Score:3)

    by TJHook3r ( 4699685 ) on Thursday February 16, 2023 @04:33PM (#63299695)
    For the number of people it contains, Wales does extremely well with public spending. The roads are pristine, the prescriptions are free and the scenery is lovely. I can guess that these roads are some bribe or other though, there is no way the Welsh need more roads, especially in North Wales

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by merde ( 464783 )

      Having driven in Wales a few times, I can agree - there are enough roads though an additional supercharger or two wouldn't hurt (listening Elon?)

      Far back in the mists of ancient time there used to be a service called motorail in the UK. You put your car on the train, traveled to another city and did the last couple of miles using your car. Maybe this is an idea that could come back in to fashion as I like having my own wheels when away from home, but find the long hours of motorway driving tedious in the ex

      • Or on-the-spot car hire is made easy and cheap, so you get a train to your destination and pick up a hire car there.
        Rather than the train dragging an extra ton of metal around the country just because it's YOUR ton of metal ?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          With self-driving cars, it would be faster than getting your TWO TO THREE tons of metal off the train too. But it depends on cost. Plus if you are carrying a lot of stuff, hauling your car makes more sense unless everyone has a trailer of stuff loaded on that gets hitched to the hire car at the other end.
          • I think one train would be more efficient than many self-driving cars.

            I guess the future is travel pods with seats and luggage space, that get transferred from personal car ( well, personal pod-carrier ) to train, then from train to hired pod-carrier at the destination.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
              I'm talking about SDCs meeting the trains at the station. But pods FTW. Although if you have a really heavy pod, you might want to put a motor in it. Maybe a seat on top.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mccalli ( 323026 )
      Not sure about more per se, but better certainly. Wales gets choked with tourist traffic in the summer, and the joke about being stuck bending caravans all the time is a lot less funny when you experience it for the eighth time that day.

      May or may not need more, but certainly the addition of sections with an extra lane for passing once in a while would not go amiss.

  • Is someone anticipating the UK rejoining the EU or customs union?

    Because traffic over the existing bridges has dried up almost completely and trucks from Ireland are going on ferries direct to Europe now.

  • In Norfolk, Devon, Cornwall and other places, construction of new buildings, including 100,000 new homes and tens of thousands of businesses, is currently almost completely halted because Natural England has ruled that all new construction in water catchment areas needs to be "nutrient neutral" - ie the runoff and release into waterways needs to add no more or less nutrients than if it had fallen on virgin ground.

    As Norfolk is largely wetland, this has halted construction almost entirely.

    Note that no one is

    • Same is happening in the Netherlands with projects being halted due to nitrogen depositions. A judge ruled that building projects could not be made exempt from submitting a detailed calculation on nitrogen emissions made during construction and after. Environmentalists showed their true colours when they hailed this as a “major victory”; it is expected that 97% of all these construction projects will meet emission standards and will be allowed to proceed once the calculations have been made and

  • 100% carbon neutral.

  • so... (Score:3)

    by kaatochacha ( 651922 ) on Thursday February 16, 2023 @05:51PM (#63299941)
    Who's the weird punster who made stopping a construction project "groundbreaking"?

  • From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-... [bbc.co.uk]

    The Welsh government said all future roads must pass strict criteria which means they must not increase carbon emissions, they must not increase the number of cars on the road, they must not lead to higher speeds and higher emissions, and they must not negatively impact the environment.

    This is a lot to ask for. Especially the requirement to "not increase the number of cars on the road". The number of cars is not a problem. Emissions are. These are two separate concerns. The same applies to higher speeds which are known to increase emissions. Speeds aren't the problem. Emissions are.

  • Piss Off Enough Of The Public (Score:3)

    by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Thursday February 16, 2023 @07:05PM (#63300139) Journal

    Piss off enough people by negatively impacting their ability to do what they want or need to do, and they will no longer be on your side. If these roads were going to make people's lives easier, then they will have cause to vote for those who won't cancel projects and who will repeal laws that allow the cancellation of projects. These assholes want to stop road building because they say internal combustion engines cause greenhouse gases. When cars run on hydrogen or (hopefully not) battery power, they will come up with some other excuse.

    FYI, South Africa, the most technically advanced country on the continent of Africa have rolling electrical blackouts because they can't supply the electricity they need now, never mind if electric cars become dominant. In India with 1.5 billion people, almost 1/4 of the world's population, 2/3 of the population experience daily power outages. And electric cars are going to solve the world's problems??? Nope, give your head a shake.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They money will be spent on improving public transport. That includes "park and ride", where you park out of town and take the bus in.

      That reduces traffic on the existing roads.

    • The answer isn't the status quo of personal vehicles belching out pollution. We're in trouble, climate-wise, because of pollution. Vehicles are not the only source of pollution (obviously) but ARE a part of it. That and ICE powerplants waste an enormous amount of their energy as heat.

      Better power distribution is needed, not head-in-the-sand 'do nothing' idiocy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by spth ( 5126797 )
      South Africa is not the single most advanced country in Africa. Some countries have a higher GDP. Some have a higher GDP per capita. Every single North African countries has a better electricity network (and a higher rate of the population having access to electricity) than South Africa.
  • If you want to go from North Wales to Cardiff by the fastest route, most of your journey will be in England.

  • From the article:
    Waters added that, in any case, the Welsh government did not have the budget to build all the roads that were planned because its capital budget was being reduced by the UK government. “With fewer resources it becomes even more important to prioritise,” he said.

    So they turned a budget problem into an opportunity to virtue signal.

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close