Transport Insights

The transport stories you won't see in the industry-friendly media

Author

Chris Ames

  • Has the DfT put the brakes on the road safety strategy?

    Back on the subject of the (allegedly) forthcoming Road Safety Strategy, I note that this BBC report ends with a comment from the Department for Transport (DfT) that:

    …we will set out the next steps for our strategy for road safety in due course.

    Not only is “in due course” deliberately vague but the DfT is only here referencing the next steps for its strategy in relation to that non-existent deadline.

    For all the spin and expectation that the strategy will be published in the autumn, there have only been two on-the-record statements that the government hopes it will happen this year.

    In April, transport secretary Heidi Alexander told MPs:

    Later this year we hope to publish the first new road safety strategy in 10 years.

    This hope was reiterated in June when roads minister Lilian Greenwood answered a parliamentary question:

    At the Transport Select Committee in April 2025, the Secretary of State set out that we hope to publish the Strategy later this year.

    It may be that the vague timeline given by the DfT is because it wants to make an announcement that will seem like new news rather than something we been expecting, but it could also be a reflection that the timeline is slipping.

    Leave a comment

  • Exclusive: ORR knew shelved A1 scheme had been defunded

    I have obtained new documents showing that National Highways’ regulator knew the government had removed funding from a large roadbuilding scheme and was hiding this from the public and Parliament. The regulator then falsely reported that the scheme would go ahead when it got planning permission.

    By doing this, the Office of Road and Rail (ORR) – supposedly an independent watchdog – became complicit in the deception over the shelving of the A1 Morpeth to Ellingham scheme, which has undermined parliamentary oversight of the government-owned company’s operation and development of the strategic road network.

    As has previously been reported, the Department for Transport (DfT) told National Highways in February 2022 that the A1 scheme had been deprioritised and its funding removed following the Spending Review in late 2021.

    Despite this, both National Highways and the ORR published reports and presented them to Parliament claiming that the scheme would enter construction in the 2022-23 financial year.

    I have now obtained correspondence between the DfT and National Highways from February 2022, which was copied to the regulator, showing not only that a cut to the company’s funding included a saving from not progressing the A1 scheme but that a deliberate decision had been taken to keep the public and Parliament in the dark about the scheme being shelved.

    A letter from a senior DfT official to National Highways’ chief financial officer notes that:

    No public announcement was made about the A1 Morpeth to Ellingham [and another redacted scheme]. Plans will be drawn up for communications about the A1 Morpeth to Elllingham, but for the time being it remains a committed scheme recognising that costs will continue to accrue pending a decision.

    (more…)

  • Exclusive: National Highways more than a third short on safety scheme pledge

    I have further detail of National Highways’ failure to deliver the actions it pledged to carry out under its “enhanced safety plan” for 2024-25, with confirmation that it delivered only 15 of a promised 24 road safety schemes, less than two-thirds.

    To recap, National Highways’ enhanced safety plan, which regulator the Office of Rail and Road’s (ORR) demanded that the government-owned company “transparently” produce to improve its failing safety record, but which both bodies have continued to hide from the public, was said to have included 43 additional actions to be delivered during the year.

    These comprised 24 road safety schemes, eight communications campaigns, and 11 “working with others” actions.

    In March, the ORR revealed that the company had only delivered 22 of the 43 actions, including just five safety schemes. In July it revealed that only 33 were delivered during the year, but did not reveal how many of these were safety schemes.

    The regulator has now disclosed to me under the Freedom of Information Act that National Highways delivered just 15 road safety scheme during the year against the target of 24.

    The vast majority of the other types of action were complete – all eight communications campaigns and 10 out of 11 “working with others” actions, with the remaining action said to be dependant on the Roads Policing Review.

    This means that although National Highways delivered three quarters of the actions, it delivered less than two-thirds of the safety schemes it promised.

    What the regulator has never clarified is how it assessed whether these actions, which were said to be “additional” to what the company had already planned for the year were genuinely additional rather than part of existing plans.

    As I pointed out in July, it does seem to have now dropped this claim.

    Leave a comment

  • Watt achievement?

    Labour, to its credit, is cracking on with the Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU), filling gaps left by the Tories, but looks like it may be falling into the Tory habit of making unfunded promises when it comes to Northern Powerhouse Rail.

    A couple of weeks ago ministers and Network Rail announced that the latest stretch of the TRU, between Church Fenton and York, had been completed on time and on budget, allowing an electrified passenger train to run between the two.

    Network Rail said:

    This achievement means that 25% of the 70-mile Transpennine main line is now electrified, laying the foundations for a faster, greener and more reliable railway between Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and York once complete.

    It is an achievement but means that TransPennine Express will continue to run (mainly) bi-mode Nova 1 (class 802) trains along the route, running on diesel for the 75% that is not electrified, and carrying both diesel engines and electric motors, which is hardly efficient or environmentally beneficial.

    (more…)

  • Telegraph rage bait aims to increase traffic

    This article from the Sunday Telegraph Labour drops plans to restrict LTNs in ‘secret war on motorists’ is on such dodgy ground that the journalist (or the sub-editors) have used scare quotes around the fictional concept in the opening paragraph.

    Labour has renewed its “war on motorists” by dropping plans to limit new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and 20mph zones.

    There’s a laughable set of quotes from Richard Holden, now shadow transport secretary, claiming that not taking forward Tory policy amounts not just to a “war on motorists”, but a “secret” one:

    “Conservatives led the charge against unfair and over-zealous enforcement but our work has been ripped up in underhand attacks without any public consultation or manifesto pledge.

    “This is a kick in the teeth to motorists, set to punish beleaguered local high streets and will slam the brakes on the economy even more than Rachel Reeves has done so far.”

    (more…)

  • More fibs about shelved A1 scheme

    The saga/farce of the cancellation of the A1 to Morpeth to Ellingham scheme, secretly shelved by the Tories in 2022, continues with notice that Labour intends to revoke the Development Consent Order that was granted last year before the election.

    According to the Department for Transport (DfT):

    The Secretary of State for Transport proposes to make an order to revoke the A1 in Northumberland: Morpeth to Ellingham Development Consent Order 2024.

    By way of explanation, the DfT says the transport secretary “is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that make it appropriate to exercise the power to revoke the A1 in Northumberland: Morpeth to Ellingham Development Consent Order 2024 (“the DCO”). Accordingly, the Secretary of State proposes to make an order to revoke the DCO.”

    It’s not really an explanation of course, and New Civil Engineer reports that  Northumberland Council deputy leader Richard Wearmouth said that the move “feels needless and spiteful”.

    But it brings up another question about the secret shelving of the scheme, which National Highways and its regulator the ORR lied about.

    (more…)

  • When is a strategy not a strategy?

    It’s very hard to know what to say about the forthcoming national road safety strategy, bits of which have been fed to the media, except that a few headline-grabbing measures are not, so far, a strategy.

    It is the nature of the way government works these days that big policy documents, labelled strategies, often feature a few crowd-pleasing changes. It doesn’t mean they don’t qualify as strategies, but what matters is how coherently the whole approach fits together.

    The motoring and road safety groups that have commented on what we have so far clearly feel the political need to be supportive of measures that are likely to make a small difference.

    But what is missing so far is anything, such as lower speed limits, that could make a real difference at the cost of alienating some in the right wing media and some voters.

    Many motoring and road safety organisations, and bereaved parents, would also like to see graduated licensing for young drivers but Labour clearly feels that its responsibility to reduce casualties doesn’t extend to areas where it could lose votes.

  • Labour copies Tories with unfunded scheme pledges

    I have had confirmation from the Department for Transport (DfT) that the Major Road Network (MRN) and Large Local Majors (LLM) are still a “programme” to fund local road upgrades but the DfT remains reluctant to be straight about how much is in the funding pot, perhaps because it isn’t very much or perhaps because it wants to makes its own re-announcement.

    As I have written before Labour ministers previously made a fake announcement about a “green light” for 28 local road upgrades of which only two were newly approved, 10 were in construction and 16 awaiting business cases and therefore dependent on how much money the DfT has to pay its share or their costs.

    In response to a question about how much money is in the combined or individual MRN and LLM budgets, the DfT told me:

    The Spending Review committed a total of £24bn of capital funding for road schemes in England over the period from 2026/27 to 2029/30, which will cover both strategic and local roads. The MRN/LLM programme is a part of that figure, and further details of this and other programmes that make up the £24bn total will be provided in due course.

    It didn’t even say that it will reveal the budget for the MRN/LLM programme “in due course”, just that it will provide “further details”.

    Labour ministers have been very critical of the previous government for announcing schemes that do not have funding but seem happy to do the same.

    I have reminded the DfT that my request for information is covered by the Freedom of Information Act.

  • National Highways steps up the greenwashing

    There’s another closure of the A3 this weekend as part of National Highways’ seemingly interminable M25 Junction 10 scheme.

    I’ve written a lot about the disruption caused by the works and once again the closure, this time between the junction and Send to the south, has diversions that involve using the M25 and a longer diversion for vehicles and drivers that are not permitted to use the motorway.

    But what’s most egregious about this is the astonishingly blatant greenwashing. According to the BBC:

    A National Highways spokesperson said: “We are restoring heathland and upgrading the junction with the A3 Wisley Interchange to reduce congestion, improve safety and create more reliable journeys.

    “We thank drivers and the local community for their patience and ask anyone travelling during these times to plan their journeys carefully.”

    National Highways is cutting down a lot of trees as part of a road widening scheme that will encourage more traffic and worsen climate change. Some of the land currently covered by trees will indeed be returned to heathland but to present this as the primary reason for the scheme is outrageous.

    And there is of course the usual trick, which rail companies also do during disruption, of transferring responsibility to the public by asking them to plan or check their journeys.

    Leave a comment

  • Another empty pledge from the DfT

    Another Department for Transport (DfT) announcement throws random and unsubstantiated numbers at a problem in a successful attempt to get headlines from gullible journalists.

    The DfT press release First-time buyers to benefit from 40,000 new homes on brownfield railway land already contains a small quibble in the sub-headline:

    Neighbourhoods in Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Cambridge will be transformed with homes, green spaces, shops and hotels.

    And of course many of these railway properties will be more suitable for shops and hotels, which may also be more economically viable.

    Here’s the plan:

    Previously, London and Continental Railways Ltd and Network Rail’s Property Team operated independently, each managing different aspects of surplus rail land across the UK.

    This fragmented approach often led to inefficiencies, duplicated efforts and missed opportunities for strategic development.

    Now, Platform4 will bring these 2 functions, skills and capabilities together in a unified structure to deliver 40,000 homes over the coming decade by disposing of surplus rail land, attracting private investment and accelerating community regeneration. By working together, instead of separately, Platform4 is expected to generate an additional £227 million by delivering at greater pace and scale.

    The press release provides no evidence that these numbers are realistic and it is noticeable that the figure of 40,000 new homes (over 10 years) is not only unsubstantiated – and presented elsewhere as an “up to” – but also does not say how many of these homes are additional to what would have happened under the existing structure.

    (more…)

Subscribe

Subscribe to get our the latest stories in your inbox.