Better Transport

Transport projects shouldn't be a gamble.

The Highways Agency has been studying old road schemes, to compare what it forecast would happen with what actually did. They found that the forecasts – which form the backbone of arguments in favour of road building – are generally inaccurate, with a tendency to over-estimate the benefits and downplay the negative impacts.

The case for a road gets over-stated, making it look better than a cheaper or more sustainable public transport alternative. This means that local people, councils and national government aren't able to decide what the best solution might be.

The Highways Agency has known about these forecasting problems for a while. Earlier this year it released a report by engineering consultants Atkins which found that the "forecasting of economic benefits is generally not accurate" and that "over half of the scheme models have under-predicted traffic volumes on the old route and [two-thirds] under-predicted by more than 25%".

It's not right to spend around a £1 billion a year on road schemes when the Government can't predict what the impacts will be.

If you agree with us, why not fill in this form to Chris Mole, the minister responsible for national roads, and ask him to stop spending money on roads until the Highways Agency can get its sums right.

You might like to mention that:

• You've seen our report, and agree with our conclusion that the Highways Agency's forecasts are inaccurate
• Local people, councils and central Government need a solid evidence base to choose which scheme is the right solution
• The Highways Agency needs to update its modelling so that its forecasts are more accurate
• You want a moratorium on major road building until this modelling has been carried out