Bridges - who benefits?

I recently came across two interesting stories on how new bridges are planning to change their respective city’s.  The Bridge of Knowledge in Rio de Janeiro is just one sign of the insatiable growth of the Brazilian economy (now 6^th largest in the world) and at $35 million will link the Federal University with the Red Line motorway.  Yet, this article in The Guardian focuses less on the economic boosterism and more on how the construction of the bridge required bribes be paid to pacify local drug gangs.  Furthermore, the new bridge and road has required noise barriers to be constructed, according to the article, in order to hide the surrounding slums from view – possibly with an eye to the influx of visitors for the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics.  


In a similar story the Washington Post reports on how the Baluarte Bicentennial Bridge in Mexico could end up aiding rather than hiding the criminal drug gangs (see here).  The bridge is part of a wider $1.5 billion super highway which will connect the states of Durango and Sinaloa and provide a link between the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean.  Yet, unfortunately the new infrastructure could be used as a convenient route for drug smuggling.  It seems bridges and roads can be a vital tool for economic development, but who benefits is a different question.

The Baluarte Bicentennial Bridge

The Need for Speed

One third of the growth previously forecast by HS2 Ltd to occur on the West Coast Main Line between 2008 and 2043 has been achieved in the last three years. (p.16)

The above quote is taken from the Updated appraisal of transport user benefits and wider economic benefits to support the planned High Speed rail line from London to Birmingham and then on to Manchester and Leeds (known as HS2).   It clearly shows how inaccurate economic forecasts are.  Even with the best economic minds at work, the Department of Transport got the forecast for HS2 passenger volumes so wrong in February 2011 that they have now come up with a new figure.  Whether the revised forecast is any closer to reality, nobody knows.  The worrying fact is that these forecasts are the basis for the Government's decision to commit £30 billion on what they deem a 'key and vital investment in Britain's future'. 



Taking the economic appraisal at face value, here are a few assumptions which caught my eye:

• People are expected to make more longer (over 100 mile) trips in the future.  Currently the average person makes 0.8 long trips per year and this is forecast to increase to 1.3 trips.  This doesn't appear much but it means the number of long trips will increase by 92% in a period of time when the UK population will only grow by 19%;
• 81% of trips between Scotland and England will be undertaken by High Speed rail by 2037.  Currently the figure is 54%; and
• Only a small percentage (8%) of trips on HS2 will be shifted from private car.  The majority (65%) of trips will be diverted from existing rail routes.  This suggests that if the aim of HS2 was to decrease car use, it will not make a significant impact.

Justine Greening MP (right) and a train

A major justification for HS2 is the potential to decrease travel times between major cities.  London to Birmingham will be cut by approximately 20 minutes, and the London to Manchester route will drop from the current 2 hours to approximately 1 hour 20 minutes.  But are these time savings worth the considerable investment?  


The journey time savings are forecast to be worth a saving of £24.5 billion.  Yet for me there is not enough evidence in the appraisal to justify the economic value of cost savings.  Business people can work on trains so what will a saving of 20 minutes do for the economy?  In addition, the time savings will be strongly dependent on where the HS2 stations are located.  There is no net benefit if stations are not easily accessible to other city locations by local transport.  What is the point if you save one hour on the HS2 train to Manchester but then get stuck on a bus or tram whilst traveling through the city.  For me, this is the key point.  I support the opinion of Sir Simon Jenkins (see here) who argues that the money could have been better spent on providing trams or light rail for all the major cities in the UK.  I support the principle of high speed rail, but in a country such as the UK it doesn't seem appropriate and instead we should focus on improving the public transport within cities which can generate much better economic, health, social and environmental benefits for a greater share of the population. 

Musing Urbanist on Tour - Guernsey

Earlier this month the Musing Urbanist spent a few relaxing days in Guernsey, the ‘severe and yet gentle’ island as described by Victor Hugo.  On the journey over I caught up with some reading and stumbled upon the Editorial in the latest edition of Monocle (issue 43).  Tyler Brule, the Editor in Chief, introduces the concept of the ‘Urbanfixer’ – a cure for all urban ailments.  This got me thinking about Guernsey and what answers the ‘Urbanfixer’ would provide to aid the island. 

After living on ‘The Rock’ (as it is affectionately referred to by locals) for eighteen years I fully appreciate that Guernsey has many strings to its bow – beautiful beaches, full employment, excellent restaurants, low crime and good schools. BUT the island could be so much better and it frustrates me every time I visit. Why is Guernsey being complacent and not maximising its brand?  The answer is transport.  For a relatively small island, Guernsey is sadly obsessed with cars.  If I were ruler for the day, I would task the Urbanfixer with weaning the island off cars and placing the bicycle at the centre of island life.

I'm not calling for the total abolition of cars (ala Sark), but I think Guernsey should look to places such as Copenhagen where the high levels of cycling provides a number of benefits (see here), including:

• health
• tourism
• safety 
• climate change
• community 

Whilst the current cycle route between St Peter Port and Bulwer Avenue is a positive addition, it is only a small step in the right direction.  Piecemeal change is not enough and I am advocating total revolution of public policy with the bicycle at its centre.  From now on the car must always take second place.

Clearly cars and vans are still required for businesses, family food shopping and deliveries, but Guernsey is missing out by encouraging the use of cars for all journeys, however short they may be.  My biggest frustration is that Guernsey encourages car use despite the short distances being ideal for cycling.  The issue of paid parking has become so politicised that nobody can clearly express the overwhelming benefits of discouraging car use.    

The new bicycle lanes, parking facilities, and subsidised bicycles can be paid for by a combination of paid parking (where the price is set very high) and an increase in motor tax (with exceptions for trade and delivery vehicles).  In the long run money will be saved due to: less congestion on the island (which currently lowers economic performance); lower health costs as a result of a healthier population; and lower emissions when the time comes for carbon to be priced.

Most importantly, the island requires a major shift in mindset in order to embrace bicycling.  Too many people in Guernsey (like many smaller communities) are stuck in a rut and see change (any change) as a negative.  This is a shame because it allows Guernsey to lose its competitiveness at a time when diversifying away from financial services is vital.  Guernsey's brand needs refreshing to place cycling at the centre.  This will benefit not just the tourist industry, but most importantly businesses and local residents as well.

This may be too much for sleepy Guernsey though, where anybody who advocates change is shot down by the armchair cynics. But it represents an opportunity to bring untold benefits to an island where the slower pace of cycling chimes with the relaxed nature of island life.