news said on Monday that the Norwegian Public Roads Administration believes that necessary climate measures make Hordfast and other major road developments less useful for society than previously estimated. The background was that the Ministry of Transport has now asked the Road Administration to ensure that the total greenhouse gas emissions from the road sector in Norway are to be cut by 55 percent by 2030. The Road Administration has therefore recalculated the social benefits of eleven planned projects. There, they have laid down measures which one assumes will give them the desired emission reduction. The two most important ones: A fuel price of NOK 50 per liter of diesel and petrol Increased tolls which result in zero growth in car traffic in the big cities The conclusion is that the socio-economic benefit will then be markedly less for almost all developments. – This is a classic “shit in, shit out” report. The prerequisites are so extreme that social utility will naturally be affected. Storting representative Helge-André Njåstad (Frp) thinks so. FRP and Høgre critical of the report In particular, the utility of the giant Hordfast development on the E39 between Bergen and Stavanger is falling sharply. This is one of the very few projects that the Swedish Road Administration previously thought had a positive socio-economic benefit. Now it is again of negative use. Høgre and the Progressive Party are critical of the fact that the government has asked the Swedish Road Administration to base petrol prices and tolls so high that they “scare away motorists”. – It may seem that there are people in the ministries looking for stumbling blocks against the state spending money on building roads in Western Norway, says Njåstad in the FRP. Storting representative Liv-Kari Eskeland (H) believes that the new analysis by the Road Administration does not have much value for the political prioritization of new road projects. – That I must take climate and environmental care seriously is indisputable. But the answer is not NOK 50 per liter and to raise the tolls sharply. If I am to make this country work, I must have mobility. That is why we build roads and want Hordfast, she says. For the FRP, it is out of the question to calculate social benefits for road projects with a petrol price of NOK 50/litre and increased tolls, says Helge-André Njåstad. Photo: Jon Bolstad Ap: – Thinking about climate and health On the other side, Hordfast’s opponents are cheering. – The most used argument for Hordfast supporters has been that the project is economically profitable. Now that argument is gone, says Roald Kvamme of the Norwegian Environmental Protection Association – Even the Road Administration’s calculations show that Hordfast does not have the right to life. Hope this means the hook on the door, writes leader Truls Gullowsen of the Norwegian Nature Conservation Association. In the Labor Party, transport policy spokesman Nils Kristian Sandtrøen will not say what consequences this analysis will have. – Climate is something we control in all matters, but these new, updated numbers are just one of several things we look at. We prioritize health in politics: Climate and nature, industry and exports, traffic safety, life and health. – Is the Labor Party for or against building Hordfast? – It is important for this government to listen to what the county has put at the top of its priority list. Then I have to make a realistic financial plan. The answer to what Labor will prioritize will come when the National Transport Plan is to be adopted next year, he says. – The new benefit analysis must be the hook on the door for Hordfast, believes Sofie Marhaug in Raudt. Photo: SIMON S. BRANDSETH MDG: – Absurd The party that works against new motorways in general and Hordfast in particular, welcomes the new calculations from the Swedish Road Administration. “It’s so annoying when you have to factor in the most important questions of our time”, wrote former SV leader Audun Lysbakken sarcastically on Twitter. – Climate should of course have been factored in from the start. Like many others, I have reacted to the fact that the Swedish Road Administration has prioritized Hordfast so highly, he says to news. This is also the opinion of party leader Arild Hermstad in MDG. – We cannot allow public agencies to make up calculations that contradict what the government claims is its environmental policy goal. It is absurd that the Swedish Road Administration has so far calculated the social benefits of such “expensive” billion-dollar projects without including as a prerequisite that we will achieve our climate goals, he believes. Storting representative Sofie Marhaug i Raudt believes the new benefit analysis must mean that Hordfast will be scrapped. – Now they can’t even use the tiny straw they previously alluded to, that it should somehow be more climate-friendly than other projects. It was greenwashing of a motorway which destroys nature and ruins the climate, she believes. Marhaug in particular encourages SV to put pressure on the government in the negotiations on the revised national budget. – This is an opportunity to cut out Hordfast, not least when it was recently known that it will also be more expensive than expected. Benefit assessment of road projects if climate targets are to be met Eleven prioritized projects prioritized by the Norwegian Road Administration in the work on the National Transport Plan (NTP) for the period 2025-2036. Change in socio-economic benefit when measures are envisaged that cut greenhouse gas emissions from the road sector in line with the authorities’ target for the year 2030 (rounded kroner amounts): E39 Ådland-Svegatjørn (Hordfast) Net benefit decreases by 3.4 billion from +1.9 billion to -1 .5 billion Traffic benefit decreases by 7.0 billion from +31.0 billion to +24.0 billion E39 Vågsbotn-Klauvaneset (Ringveg aust, Bergen) Net benefit decreases by 0.6 billion from -1.9 billion to -2.5 billion Traffic benefit decreases by 0.9 billion (22%) from +3.9 billion to +3.1 billion E 39 Smiene-Harestad Net benefit decreases by 1.1 billion from +0.6 billion to -0.5 billion Traffic benefit decreases 1.7 billion from +3.9 billion to +2.3 billion E 134 Oslofjord connection, construction stage 2 Net benefit decreases 0.7 billion from -3.3 billion to – 4.0 billion Traffic benefit decreases by 1.5 billion from +0.3 billion to -1.2 billion E 134 Røldal-Seljestad Net benefit reduced by 0.6 billion from -1.3 billion to -1.9 billion Traffic benefit reduced by 0.5 billion from +2.6 billion to +2.1 billion E 134 Dagslett – E18, Viker Net benefit decreases by 1.2 billion from -1.1 billion to -2.3 billion Traffic benefit decreases by 1.8 billion from +2.3 billion to +0.6 billion E 134 Saggrenda-Elgsjø (2/3-field) Net benefit decreases by 0.3 billion from -0.3 billion to – 0.6 billion Traffic benefit increases 0.1 billion from +0.7 billion to +0.8 billion E 16 Hylland-Slæen Net benefit decreases 0.2 billion from -1.7 billion to -1.8 billion Traffic benefit decreases by 0.1 billion from +0.9 billion to +0.8 billion E 6 Megården-Mørsvikbotn Net benefit almost unchanged: -6.3 billion Traffic benefit almost unchanged: +5.0 billion Rv. 22 Glommakryssinga Net benefit decreases by 0.7 billion from -0.6 billion to -1.3 billion Traffic benefit decreases by 0.7 billion from +1.8 billion to +1.1 billion Rv. 291 Holmenbrua Net benefits around unchanged: -1.0 billion Traffic benefit around unchanged: +0.1 billion Source: Norwegian Public Roads Administration’s table delivered to the Ministry of Transport and Communications on 8 May 2023. See also associated note.
ttn-69
– A “shit in, shit out” report – news Vestland
