Transport Insights

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

Author

Chris Ames

  • No rethink: Burnham backs privatisation

    Contrary to (my) expectations, the Government has now published the Highways (Financing) Bill, which provides for even more public assets to be privatised, destroying Andy Burnham’s promise to be “relentless” in giving people “ownership and control”.

    I had thought that a very recent statement that the Bill would be published “when Parliamentary time allows” meant that it would not be appearing any time soon – or why make such a statement about a bill in the King’s Speech, but the Bill was in fact introduced to the House of Commons and given its First Reading yesterday with Second Reading on 15 October.

    Aside from setting up the private funding mechanism for building the Lower Thames Crossing, the Bill will facilitate the transfer of the Dartford Crossings – and their revenue – to the same private entity.

    It’s probably best to set this out in terms of the explanatory notes:

    The Highways (Financing) Bill (“the Bill”) establishes a statutory framework to enable private sector investment to construct, operate, maintain and improve new and existing strategic road infrastructure through a Regulated Asset Base (“RAB”) model and for private companies to act as a Highway Authority for that infrastructure.

    And, somewhat mealy-mouthed:

    The main provisions, needed to establish the RAB model, will:

    […]

    provide transfer schemes to allow property, rights and liabilities to be transferred between the Secretary of State strategic highways companies, licence holders and other appropriate persons in connection with the licensing regime established by the Act.

    Make no mistake: this is privatisation. And the notes make explicitly clear that the Government believes that giving away a public asset and its rights to collect tolls is “needed to establish the RAB model”.

    This means they don’t think they can get private finance to build the LTC without a huge amount of public funding being diverted from the DfT to a private body.

    By way of a reminder, the PM said last week:

    The government I lead will be relentless in giving people and places what they were promised 10 years ago, ownership and control.

    Not so relentless after all. It seems that Burnham is as happy to seen public assets privatised as Starmer and Reeves were.

    The obvious contradiction, the earlier failure to set a date for the Bill, and the qualification “at this stage” made me think that a rethink was being carried out. I was, it seems, very wrong.

    In fact, the DfT’s recent response is almost word-for-word what roads minister Simon Lightwood said in February.

    As a former PM once said, “nothing has changed”. Privatisation remains Labour policy.

    One response to “No rethink: Burnham backs privatisation”

    1. Is Burnham about to pull a U-turn on the runway? – Transport Insights

      […] another piece of climate-wrecking and unconvincingly justified transport infrastructure (the LTC), it turned out that ministers are (for now) going full steam […]

      Like

      Reply

    Leave a Reply

  • Private firm’s train order takes GBR hype to new heights

    One of the things that irritates me about over-hyped government announcements, particularly from Labour, is the way that the hype provides cover for not doing very much while pretending to do a lot. The latest ludicrous announcement from the Department for Transport (DfT) is one of the most egregious pieces of hype it has delivered for a while.

    A press release announces:

    New British-built trains to transform railways and reindustrialise Britain

    faster and more frequent train journeys across the North as government supports a £1 billion investment in 29 new British-built trains on Great British Railways (GBR)

    So you are saying that a purchase of just 29 trains will simultaneously transform the railways and reindustrialise the whole country?

    Not only that but

    The new fleet of 29 battery-electric TransPennine Express trains, set to be built at Derby’s historic Litchurch Lane Works, is a clear example of what Great British Railways can deliver by bringing track and train together.

    And:

    Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, said:

    “It’s exactly what Great British Railways is all about – taking back control of the basics and getting Britain believing again.”

    This is (or should be) a routine purchase by a private rolling stock company, with its own (borrowed) money, from a private, largely foreign-owned train builder, with the stock then leased to a train operator.

    This model has been in place for decades, with the state’s contribution being to underwrite the train operator’s revenue. It has nothing to do with Great British Railways bringing track and train together; in fact, the DfT is largely responsible for the longstanding procurement gaps and loss of capability that this order begins to address.

    The only thing that has changed is that the train operator is now publicly owned.

    (more…)

  • Is a Thames tunnel U-turn on the way?

    A response from the Department for Transport on the question of whether it is really going to privatise a major public asset as part of its plan for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) suggests that the penny has dropped that it is incompatible with Andy Burnham’s promise to give people more “ownership and control”.

    Officials have suddenly slipped the phrase “at this stage” into what otherwise appears to be a doubling down on the choice of the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model, under which ownership and operations of the Dartford Crossings would transfer to a new regulated private sector entity.

    When you look at the scheme’s Accounting Officer Assessment, the choice of the RAB model looks pretty decisive:

    The project is affordable on the basis of the regulated asset base (RAB) model

    The decision that the LTC will be taken forward on the basis of the RAB model

    The RAB model is the only current option that is judged to sufficiently meet the government’s strategic objective

    The decision to … take forward the RAB model as the government’s preferred financing model

    As for as I can see, the DfT has not previously used “at this stage” when describing the financing model for the £10bn+ project.

    It has now:

    (more…)

  • Not us, guv (unless it suits us)

    A parliamentary answer from a transport minister has highlighted the government’s impotence – or reluctance to intervene – over hikes to unregulated rail fares, even by nationalised rail companies.

    LibDem MP Roz Savage asked the transport secretary:

    what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of increasing Advance rail fares on passengers who commute two or three days per week.

    It’s not clear whether she was asking about actual increases or planned increases, but (very) junior transport minister Keir Mather replied:

    Advance fares are not regulated by the Government and are managed on a commercial basis by train operators. They are priced according to demand for a particular service, and their price and availability can vary depending on the route, date and time of travel, and when the ticket is purchased.

    All of which is true but it studiously avoids answering the question. We might assume that the Department for Transport has not made any assessment of the potential impact of any increases on part-time commuters.

    It is basically saying that unregulated fares are not its problem.

    But hang on a minute. Last year the DfT announced:

    Rail passengers in the North to benefit from simpler fares and cheaper tickets thanks to public ownership

    Passengers in the North of England can benefit from cost and carbon savings through a new customer initiative that expands the availability of advance tickets across government owned train operators.

    Rail minister, Lord Peter Hendy, said: “This is exactly the type of collaborative work public ownership enables, allowing us to put passengers first by making train travel simpler and more affordable.”

    The move is part of a wider effort to make rail travel more attractive, affordable, and sustainable – and shows how public ownership can deliver real benefits for passengers.

    Admittedly, making more advance tickets available (i.e. on journeys with more than one operator) is not the same as controlling their prices, but there is an obvious contradiction in claiming credit for cheaper fares as a benefit of public ownership and saying that higher fares, even from nationalised firms, are not your responsibility.

  • You’ve let the King down…

    I’m still awaiting a response from the Department for Transport as to whether it is still sold on the privatisation model for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), which delay may itself be significant, but in the meantime I have noticed something that brings the delay to the required legislation into sharper focus.

    Although inclusion on a King’s Speech doesn’t guarantee that a bill will be in the next session of Parliament, a letter in May from transport secretary Heidi Alexander to Transport Committee chair Ruth Cadbury explicitly said this one would be.

    Setting out “the Department for Transport’s legislative agenda for the second Parliamentary session, as set out in the King’s Speech”, Alexander wrote:

    The department will also be introducing two new pieces of legislation in the next session.

    […]

    Furthermore, our Highways (Financing) Bill will enable a new financing approach to fund large-scale road schemes, supporting the UK Government’s commitment to deliver a modern transport network that helps people get where they need more easily and safely.

    So when Lord (Peter) Hendy can only say that the Bill

    will be brought forward when Parliamentary time allows

    that’s a significant backtracking, suggesting either incompetence or a rethink.

    Meanwhile, an “independent” review of the Office of Road and Rail (ORR) looks at the expectation that it will be the regulator for the entity that will build and operate the LTC.

    (more…)

  • Climate change is a “forbidding challenge” for aviation

    One of the things my research into transport journalism is addressing is the way that mainstream outlets tend to look at transport issues in consumer terms rather than looking at systemic issues and this BBC report, which treats air travellers as victims of climate change rather than contributors to it, is a case in point.

    In an “In Depth” piece, Theo Leggett, international business correspondent, warns:

    Aviation faces hotter, stormier skies – and passengers might have to accept more disruption

    Looking at a particularly stormy day in June, which caused significant disruption to flights, Leggett does at least name the underlying problem:

    The timing in this case was clearly unlucky. But there are concerns that such incidents are only going to become more common as the effects of climate change mount up around the world and weather systems are likely to become increasingly unstable, making disruption more likely and adding to costs for airlines, airports and travellers.

    As far as it goes, it’s a good article, which notes that disruption from climate-driven weather patterns extends beyond storms:

    Heavier rainfall, for instance, increases the likelihood of flooding. In a worst case, this can paralyse airport operations, as happened in April 2024 when torrential downpours hit Dubai International Airport. It briefly had to close its runways, while disruption lasted for two days. More than 1,200 flights were cancelled, affecting tens of thousands of passengers.

    Oh, those poor influencers.

    (more…)

  • Spring, summer, autumn: Councils still in the dark over zombie schemes

    Now that the summer is officially over, I have returned to the issue of the zombie local road schemes that appeared in the spring not to have survived a review – and it appears that promises to clarify their status in “the summer” have not been honoured.

    The story starts with a review of Major Road Network and Large Local Majors (MRN/LLM) programme announced last year, which led to the announcement in March that 16 schemes “will progress”, leaving 26 effectively, but not officially scrapped.

    As I have reported, the DfT said that these schemes were still under review, with a decision expected “later in the summer”.

    But now it’s September.

    Wiltshire Council told me that it has not heard anything further about its funding bid for the A350 Melksham bypass, while Gloucestershire CC seems to have picked up that the can had been kicked further down the road.

    In July it indicated that it was going to carry on progressing its scheme for new M5 junction and a bypass for the A46 near Tewkesbury, including spending more public money on it, but noted that the government funding was still uncertain. A paper to its Cabinet stated:

    (more…)

  • Has Thames tunnel plan stalled under Burnham?

    As the question of whether the case for the £10bn Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) has been properly made continues to rumble on, the possibility arises that the project may have stalled under a new prime minister who has committed giving people “ownership and control”.

    Firstly, I have had a response from the Department for Transport (DfT) to my request for an explanation as to how the outline business case (OBC) can be “in draft” despite the document having been approved nearly a year ago as the basis for a decision to commit a large chunk of public money.

    The DfT seems to be sticking to its line – the basis for its refusal to disclose the document – without actually saying that the OBC is still in draft. It is full of fudges:

    the next iteration of the business case

    The business case remains a draft working document

    was not the finalised outline business case

    this project remains at Outline Business Case stage

    None of this states that the OBC is in draft (or was in draft at the time Rebecca Lush of Transport Action Network asked to see it).

    For good measure, the DfT says that publishing an unspecified draft document now:

    could present an incomplete or misleading position, including material still subject to validation, decisions and sensitivities linked to future procurement and investment activity

    So if this is the document that went to the department’s investment committee last October, a decision to increase public spending to £3.1bn was taken on the basis of “material still subject to validation”.

    The DfT must know that it can’t have it both ways on this.

    Meanwhile, (more…)

  • Say what you like about Mussolini…

    There are definitely questions to be asked about how well the government has run various rail routes – and particularly South Western Railway (SWR) – since they were nationalised, but the Daily Mail is not the outlet to do it – and here’s the proof.

    Marking a random period since SWR was nationalised in May 2025, ROSS CLARK says:

    If Burnham thinks bringing back the clanking, wheezing ghost of British Rail will make the trains run on time, here’s the proof he’s DELUDED

    Describing Labour’s plans (which pre-date Burnham) as “bringing back the clanking, wheezing ghost of British Rail” is hardly a set-up that inspires confidence in objective analysis. I don’t remember seeing the party, or the government setting out the policy in those terms.

    The analysis of how has it all worked out includes:

    the luckless passengers trying to travel on South Western from Surbiton to Waterloo in recent days might not have felt Labour’s doctrinaire experiment was ‘really positive’ after all.

    In the space of just one hour, no fewer than four services were delayed or cancelled – for different reasons.

    I sense a little bit of cherry picking here. From “recent days” we focus on “just one hour”.

    (more…)

  • A triumph of sloganeering

    Alongside the news that the Department for Transport (DfT) has resorted to gaslighting to hide the outline business case for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), a new article in an academic journal tells the same story – that the case for the £10bn+ project is largely confected – in a different way.

    A paper in Transport Policy by UCL professor Robin Hickman (and others) Discourses on the Lower Thames Crossing: rationality or rationalisation?:

    examines the Lower Thames Crossing in discursive terms, seeking to understand the multiple socially-constructed realities associated with the project.

    Here “discursive” means an approach that looks at a policy as a product of discourse – something created by language, narratives and social meaning, and in this case

    specifically the dominance of the views and evidence given by National Highways as the project promoter.

    Foucauldian discourse analysis, as used here:

    allows projects to be understood beyond their supposedly ‘objective’ justification, to incorporate elements of subjectivity. This concerns how particular ways of thinking, talking and doing make projects appear to be rational, necessary and legitimate.

    This Foucauldian stuff is way too clever for me, but the article very much strikes a chord when it talks about how transport policy, including under Labour, is mainly sloganeering:

    For example, narratives are given that “traffic delays stifle progress”, “motorways and trunk roads are the economic arteries of our country”, “highway investment will resolve congestion” and “kickstart economic growth” (Department for Transport, 2025a, p.4). The planning system is even put forward as blocking project delivery, requiring more ‘efficient’ project implementation (HM Treasury, 2025).

    (more…)

Subscribe

Subscribe to get our the latest stories in your inbox.