More roads...

[AlanD]

What I omitted to add is that it seems that by driving in a manner that should increase my safety, it is provoking the complete opposite because it brings me into conflict with those who show no respect for the Highway Code and have no time for personal safety.

[snibgo]

Ideologically the Tories should actually be all for road tolls. It fits in with utilities being sold off to private companies who then charge the public for usage.

Yes. There have been recent hints of this thinking: replacing the Highways Agency by a number of private companies, and leasing our roads to China.

Of course, the Highways Agency is already a private company, and we are already in hock to China and our debts increase by £100bn per year, but these seem to be new moves to wash the government's hands of responsibility for managing roads, or an attempt to get loads of new capital to massively expand the network, or something.

I share Maria Eagle's fears about tolls that:

These proposals risk simply driving traffic on to local roads, increasing congestion and emissions while yet again setting back efforts to improve safety.

I'm not party-political and I doubt that any government would be cleverer than the current one. Sigh.

[thirdcrank]

... Of course, the Highways Agency is already a private company, ....

And there's the rub. Even the strongest supporters of the market as a decisionmaker generally seem to accept that there are certain things which the market does not do well and I'd suggest that providing a decent road network is one. As far as I can see, the Highways Agency is given its £££ and it then gets on with doing more or less as it sees fit. This has obvious implications for cyclists wanting to travel long distances to get to main destinations because the Highways Agency has decided that that's not what roads are for.

The accountability seems limited eg when Bliar was embarrassed when the refrain was "Oh, dear, what can the matter be? Richard Madeley's got stuck on a motorway...." the Highways Agency's gritting chief got it in the neck but little else that I've noticed.

I can see all sorts of benefits from companies tendering for the building and maintenance contracts but the big decisions should be taken by people who have been elelected, advised by people who are accountable, if only to them.

[CREPELLO]

Of course, the Highways Agency is already a private company.

Unless I'm missing a sub text to this comment, the HA is a government agency AFAIK. Do you mean it behaves like an unaccountable private company?

[snibgo]

It's a private company with assets of around £100bn, annual budget around £3bn, owned (I suppose) by the government and accountable in the usual legal ways, as well as having a business plan (negotiated with the government, I suppose) that includes objectives to be achieved. The objectives could be written on a single sheet of A4. Surprisingly (to me), HA staff are civil servants.

It seems to me that there isn't much government control over the HA. Does that matter? Dunno. Would it be different if it was a conventional government department? Dunno.

When I asked my county council to clear thorny vegetation from a shared use path, they passed the request to the HA. The pedestrian/cycle path runs alongside part of the Strategic Road Network, so the HA own and maintain it. Did they clear it? No.

This path was part of a wider scheme to dual a road, leaving most of the old road. They counted "vehicle" flows at various points before and after the scheme, but did not count either pedestrians or cyclists. I thought this odd as they expected to increase walking and cycling. I suspect it succeeded, but HA didn't bother counting.