The brilliant Claire Mercer has posted two TV news reports on yesterday’s demonstration, on the Smart Motorways Kill Facebook feed and YouTube.
I think both reports give a good explanation of the issue, but by way of a reminder, roads minister Simon Lightwood is refusing to release a raft of Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) reports on smart motorways, which would reveal their record on issues such as safety, value for money and environmental impact.
The first is from Fred Dimbleby of ITV’s Calendar:
And a second from Spencer Stokes of BBC Look North:
A Labour MP joined campaigners outside the office of the Department for Transport (DfT) today, calling for suppressed reports on the impact of smart motorway schemes to be released.
The event was a collaboration between myself and Claire Mercer of the Smart Motorways Kill campaign and aimed to highlight the fact that the DfT is refusing to release a raft of Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) reports on smart motorways, which would reveal their record on issues such as safety, value for money and environmental impact.
It generated a significant amount of attention, with Mercer interviewed by local and national media, telling them that she aimed to “shame” ministers into taking action.
According to a 2022 report by National Highways’ regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), nine POPE reports were due to be completed that year alone. It is not known how many have been compiled since.
Both National Highways and the ORR have blamed ministers for the failure to make the reports public, with the DfT claiming that the reports are still undergoing an “assurance” process.
Sarah Champion, Member of Parliament for Rotherham, who is Mercer’s MP, also attended the demonstration, at which a banner demanding “Release the Pope” was held up at the entrance to the DfT’s offices.
The roads minister has backed the continued suppression of a raft of evaluation reports on the safety and effectiveness of smart motorway schemes, some of which were due for publication three years ago.
I revealed in September that ministers are sitting on a huge amount of data on the controversial schemes, in the form of multiple post opening project evaluation (POPE) reports, including at least nine that were due for completion in 2022.
Although the reports were produced by National Highways, the Department for Transport (DfT) called them in and has not allowed them to be published, on the grounds that it is “undertaking its final assurance”.
An event at the DfT tomorrow will highlight the continuing suppression of the reports and call on ministers to release them in the name of transparency.
The event is a collaboration between myself and Claire Mercer of the Smart Motorways Kill campaign, who wrote to DfT ministers to invite them to attend.
She has received a reply from Simon Lightwood, as the minister responsible for the strategic network, who has both declined to attend and backed the patently false claim that the reports are still undergoing assurance. He wrote:
National Highways does evaluate the economic impact after schemes have been operational for five years and we are committed to transparency, but this is a complex process, and it is right that we take the time to fully assure findings. This process is ongoing, and we will provide an update on publication in due course.
The phrase “in due course” indicates that Lightwood is not even prepared to say when “an update on publication” will be provided, let alone when – or even if – the reports will actually be published.
In backing this lie, Lightwood has firmly owned the cover-up of what are looking increasingly like very damaging findings.
The event will take place at the Department for Transport, 33 Horseferry Rd, London, SW1P 4DR at 12:15pm on Wednesday 5 November.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has rowed back on an apparently false claim from a minister that the previous government “closed” the Ely Area Capacity Enhancements rail scheme.
As I noted last week, roads minister Simon Lightwood stated in a written parliamentary answer that:
The Ely Area Capacity scheme was closed by the previous government…
This was inconsistent with what has been said elsewhere, including by Lightwood, and Network Rail considers the scheme to be awaiting a funding decision.
I asked the DfT to clarify Lightwood’s claim that the scheme had been “closed”.
It did not do so. Instead, a spokesperson told me:
We recognise the importance of the Ely Junction scheme, and we fully anticipate it will be part of a pipeline of projects to be considered as part of future funding decisions.
There is a strong case for Ely Junction, and we are committed to working with a broad range of stakeholders to support its inclusion in the future pipeline.
I will be taking part in an event at the Department for Transport on Wednesday to highlight the continuing suppression of evaluation reports on the safety and effectiveness of smart motorways and to call on ministers to release them in the name of transparency.
I revealed in September that ministers are sitting on a huge amount of data on the controversial schemes, in the form of multiple post opening project evaluation (POPE) reports, including at least nine that were due for completion in 2022.
When the five-years after POPE on the scheme to convert the M1 between junctions 10 and 13 to dynamic hard shoulder was published in September 2021, it revealed that it had cost the economy £200m instead of a projected benefit of £1bn, because it slowed traffic down. It made national news.
The event is a collaboration between myself and Claire Mercer of the Smart Motorways Kill campaign, who has done most of the work.
Confirmed attendees at the event include her MP, Sarah Champion, and crash survivor Jack Gallowtree, as well as representatives from road safety and motoring groups.
Irrespective of what you think about smart motorways, as the official press release puts it:
The event’s purpose is to shine a spotlight on the years of delay and lack of transparency surrounding these critical reports. Campaigners are urging the DfT and National Highways to release all outstanding POPE evaluations, answer questions, and ensure that lessons are learned to improve future road safety and infrastructure planning.
Who could argue with that?
The event will include a demand to “Release the POPE”, a playful reference to the occasions in the past when the pontiff has been captured, including following the 1527 sack of Rome.
Expected to be a lot more orderly, it will take place at the Department for Transport, 33 Horseferry Rd, London, SW1P 4DR at 12:15pm on Wednesday 5 November.
There won’t be fireworks, but we hope ministers will feel the heat over the continued cover-up.
With rail getting all the funding it needs, the local LibDem MP has used the derailment of a passenger train in Cumbria to highlight the risk of landslips on the rail network as climate change increases the risks.
A high-speed Avanti West Coast train said to be travelling at around 80mph partly derailed after hitting a landslide in Cumbria early this morning.
The operator said all 86 people plus its train crew were evacuated to a nearby hotel and were were assessed by paramedics, with four treated for minor injuries but none requiring hospital treatment.
Former LibDem leader Tim Farron called for an investigation into whether enough resources were being spent on the line.
National Highways has declined to confirm that it will meet a pledge to mitigate by 2030 all outfalls that pose a “high-risk” of polluting the environment with toxic road runoff.
The company has published a document that its director of environmental sustainability, Stephen Elderkin, described on LinkedIn, as “detailing 182 confirmed high priority locations where outfalls or soakaways present a high-risk of pollution”.
But, while the locations are confirmed, the pledge to mitigate them appears far less certain.
The detailed document and map represent the next stage of the government-owned company’s 2030 Water Quality Plan, which:
sets out a high-level programme of work that achieves the plan to mitigate all high risk outfalls by 2030
However, that document also emphasizes that:
Delivery in RP3 will be subject to funding being agreed through RIS3.
Elderkin’s statement National Highways has “committed to mitigate the risk at high-risk locations by 2030 with the installation of new or upgraded treatment facilities” conspicuously lacks the word “all”.
The new document states that it:
contains details of sites confirmed through these processes as having an confirmed risk of pollution at the end of August 2025. These high priority locations include a total of 182 assets.
It adds:
We expect that, in all, approximately 250 outfalls and soakaways will be confirmed as requiring new or upgraded treatment systems by 2030.
While Elderkin stated that:
In total, we expect to deliver improvements to around 250 locations
this is a statement of expectation without a date.
Similarly, the new document conspicuously avoids making firm commitments. It lists for each location:
A transport minister has confirmed that we will be kept in the dark about the costs of individual “enhancement” schemes when the next road investment strategy (RIS 3) is published in March, underlining just how little transparency there is about roads spending.
It follows the Department for Transport (DfT) still refusing to say how much the Structures Fund that it announced in June will actually be worth and how much the four-year budget for local road enhancements will be, even after clarifying that there will be a total of £1bn for both.
The third Road Investment Strategy (RIS3) will be published in March 2026 and will include a total funding line for all enhancements to the strategic road network to be delivered during the period 2026-2031.
This does mean that we will be able to judge whether the DfT has put its money where its mouth is over pledges in the draft RIS of “a greater focus than ever before on the maintenance and renewal of the network”.
Without even a headline figure so far for the cost of enhancements, or even the capital/resource split in the £25bn five-year budget, it is impossible to judge this pledge.
A minister’s answer to a parliamentary question this week includes a claim that appears to be untrue but would be just as controversial if it were true.
I wrote yesterday about Simon Lightwood’s response to a parliamentary question from shadow transport secretary Richard Holden, about the Ely Area Capacity Enhancements scheme, making the point that Lightwood contradicted rail minister Peter Hendy’s claim that the government is “backing rail with the funding needed”.
The Ely Area Capacity scheme was closed by the previous government and it has not been possible to reprioritise it at the most recent Spending Review.
Firstly note that Lightwood’s claim that is has not been possible to fund the scheme, which again gives the lie to Hendy’s claim.
But Lightwood also claimed that the Tories had “closed” the scheme.
Although it is true that neither Labour nor the Tories have provided funding for the scheme, this claim is not matched by information in the public domain.
Thames Water has joined Richmond Council in refusing to say where road runoff goes next from a gully into which a resident famously poured a small amount of coffee, raising concerns that toxic pollution may be flowing unmitigated into the river whose name the company bears.
The highway authority made national headlines when its enforcement officers fined Burcu Yesilyurt £150 for pouring a small amount of coffee down the gully outside Richmond Station, only to rescind the fine on the grounds that she had only committee a minor contravention of Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The reality is that, aside from the small amount of a relatively innocuous liquid, whether it was “likely to pollute land or water” would depend on what the gully drains into.
This would either be into the combined sewer system or a surface water only sewer, both likely operated by Thames Water.
If the former, there is no pollution risk; if the latter, the pollution risk would pale into insignificance compared with the risk from other runoff from the road, including oil spills, particulate matter and microplastics from tyre and brake wear.
With Richmond Council refusing to tell me, I asked Thames Water, who also refused to say but didn’t deny that it was its sewer.
This is an astonishing situation where two major organisations, one a public authority and one a private company fulfilling a public function, are refusing to be straight with the public about a matter of significant public concern.
Transport Insights 
Leave a comment