Civils plan media push to swing transport debate

Contractors are to counter anti-roads publicity with a media push of their own in an effort to combat the massive swing in public opinion against road building.

The continual failure of powerful road user groups to adequately defend the need for proper investment led the FCEC's External Affairs committee to agree on Monday to overturn the low-profile policy of the civils lobby.

'We have decided to raise the profile of the issue. We can't let this go by default. If users won't do it for themselves, we'll do it for them,' promised external affairs director Jim Turner.

The initiative will begin early next month and target both the media and the general public. It will aim to expose the Government's lack of leadership in transport - and the consequent threat to employment - by highlighting the following:

n A crossover between road investment and traffic levels - Road traffic is about to exceed the 1989 levels (when the Government stepped in to double the roads programme) while spending is set to fall below the pre-Roads for Prosperity level in real terms.

n Lack of commitment to rail - The FCEC will detail the 'very limited' scope of promises to invest in rail to compensate for roads cuts

n Light rail - Further lack of finance from Government. Schemes such as Croydon Tramlink only carry the vague promise that money has been set aside 'subject to satisfactory bids' being received.

The FCEC will also canvass 'inward investors' such as Samsung and Fujitsu to detect any dissatisfaction with the level of infrastructure provision. Special attention is likely to be paid to Toyota, whose plans for a œ200 million extension to its Derby plant were hit by DoT's decision to pull the A564 Doveridge bypass scheme after bids were submitted, and turn it into a DBFO project.

'These people require very good infrastructure. If they're not being adequately provided for, what happens to job-creating investment?' said Turner.

He added that the FCEC had previously avoided a high profile in the transport debate for fear that its views, as a 'vested interest', could be held up to ridicule and so 'distort the argument'. But with publicity now so-one sided - to the point that national papers are frequently using environmental correspondents to report transport stories - the federation apparently believes the debate will be more distorted by its silence.

n Mawhinney's transport debate see P3

n Infrastructure output P8