Roads “good for the environment”

So runs the headline in a WBCSD news item on a new report funded, unsurprisingly enough, by the European Road Federation.

It is interesting what a difference a word makes. The actual press release makes the slightly less controversial claim: “Better roads good for the environment”.

But what does “Better” mean in this context? Looking at the Norwegian study that the report cites as its source, better seems to mean ‘quicker for cars’.

So a more appropriate headline might have been “traffic is bad for the environment” which I think we can all agree on, and perhaps even shorten: “traffic is bad”.

So much for headlines.

The headline that I think the European Road Federation were grasping for was “less road capacity does not mean less pollution”, unless less roads results in less cars. A useful point.

They then go and ruin it by trying to claiming that that “The same [Norwegian] study indicated that in a majority of cases, the changes [more road capacity] did not generate new car trips, putting an end to one of the most enduring transport myths”

I’m not sure that myth can be put to an end, given the (English summary) of the study says: “The results of the study show that we get a substantial growth in car traffic when the capacity of the congested urban motorway is increased by one extra lane … and the results more or less emphasizes the “old truth” that when cities are larger than a certain size, it is more or less impossible to solve the traffic problems by increasing the road capacities.”

Two other points of note:

• The independent Norwegian study was paid for by the Norwegian Road Federation

• The other suggestions in the European Road Federation report look sensible: take into account the environmental impact of new roads, build them in more environmentally sound ways.