A proposal on the M4 relief road — Mike Hedges AM
I am in an unusual position regarding the M4 relief road, I am sceptical due to its potential environmental damage and rising cost but convincible if the environmental damage can be reduced and a strong economic case made.
Why is the answer to all traffic problems to build a new road? The M25 gives a lesson on the effect of building more roads. Soon after the motorway opened in 1986 traffic levels exceeded the maximum design capacity and in 1990, just four years after completion plans to widen the whole of the M25 to four lanes were produced. By 1993 the motorway, which was designed for a maximum of 88,000 vehicles per day, was carrying 200,000 vehicles per day.
We have had suggestions of a black route, a blue route, and several other roads but there are potential solutions without building another road. I would like to suggest three possible ways of reducing traffic hold-ups on the M4 around Newport that would not involve building any additional roads.
We know a number of things about the M4 in South Wales. One is that where there are a lot of junctions very close together and a two-lane motorway then we get traffic hold-ups at peak times. Secondly, that traffic that could use alternative routes uses the M4 almost by default. Thirdly that frequent lane changes leads to vehicles braking causing vehicles towards the back of the queue to end up stationary.
We have two main choices either build the road to reduce current traffic problems but with the distinct possibility that it will increase usage and as in the case of the M25 prove to need widening in a short period of time or we can attempt to address the current problem within the constraints of the M4 as it is now.
My first suggestion is that traffic from the Midlands and the North heading either for the south Wales valleys or west of Port Talbot is redirected on to the A465 (heads of the valleys road) when the improvement work is completed. This would reduce the traffic using the M4 around Newport and also at peak periods produce faster journey times.
Secondly, make the outside lane of the M4 between just after junction 24 and just after junction 28 for through traffic only with a minimum speed of 50MPH and with no lane changes except in the case of an accident blocking a lane. If this “freeway” model existed it would separate through traffic from local traffic and there is no reason why the outside lane could not travel unimpeded through the area.
Thirdly why do we have so many junctions close together, whilst the closure of a junction or junctions would be locally unpopular, it would reduce vehicles joining the motorway, especially those only travelling a short distance, and the resulting slowing of traffic as vehicles join and leave the M4. Of course, if option two was trialed and found to work then there would be no need to close these junctions.
The question I ask is is, is it worth spending what will almost certainly turn out to be close to £2 billion and damage local wildlife habitats as it is planned to pass through the Caldicot and Wentloog Levels, an area of natural wetlands. The Campaign Against the Levels Motorway (CALM) claim that the proposed motorway would ruin a historic landscape and increase carbon emission.
Surely every possible alternative to building the M4 relief road should be considered before the huge financial commitment and environmental damage to building the relief road is made.
Mike Hedges is the Assembly Member for Swansea East.