Transport Insights

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

Author

Chris Ames

  • National Highways confirms need, but not action, on toxic runoff

    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.

    Such funding has still not been formally agreed, although National Highways’ chief executive told Parliament that it is “proceeding on the basis that we will be funded” and the plan appears to be part of a funded National Programme.

    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:

    (more…)

  • RIS 3 will not give the full picture on enhancements cost

    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.

    Responding to yet another question from shadow transport secretary Richard Holden – this time about whether the full scheme costs for all projects will be published in the final RIS 3 document – Simon Lighwood said:

    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.

    (more…)

  • Ely rail scheme secretly “closed”, Lightwood claims

    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”.

    Lightwood also said this:

    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.

    (more…)

  • Thames Water won’t come clean over Thames water pollution

    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.

    (more…)

  • Lightwood tells Hendy: we can’t give rail the cash it needs

    Transport minister Simon Lightwood has contradicted fellow minister Lord (Peter) Hendy’s patently untrue claim that the government is “backing rail with the funding needed”.

    In reply to a parliamentary question, once again from Tory Richard Holden, about the Ely Area Capacity Enhancements scheme, Lightwood said:

    Secretary of State set out the schemes that have been prioritised for the Spending Review period in her 8 July announcement and made clear that other schemes would be kept under review as part of our pipeline for potential progression in future as funding becomes available.

    Network Rail, which Hendy used to run before becoming the rail minister, says:

    The railway through Ely is a vital part of the rail network. It includes a busy junction where five railway lines converge and is currently operating at full capacity. This is limiting the opportunity for growth of important routes for passenger and cross-country freight services.

    Now, it may be a sensible approach to acknowledge that you don’t currently have the money do everything that needs doing. But, as I noted earlier this week, Hendy claimed that:

    The Government … is backing rail with the funding needed.

    How can you have schemes waiting for funding to become available at the same time as providing all the funding needed?

    Leave a comment

  • Council road schemes and broken bridges to share £1bn

    Funding for local road enhancements and repairing thousands of “run-down bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels” over the next four years will be equivalent to the cost of one major project on the strategic road network.

    The Department for Transport (DFT) has clarified its botched press release in June about cash for England’s road network, explaining that while the £1bn in the headline ­will not be used for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), it will have to cover both “local highway enhancement projects” and a new Structures Fund.

    The department will still not say how much of the £1bn is for enhancements to local roads under the Major Road Network (MRN) and Large Local Majors (LLM) funding streams and how much is for repairing dodgy structures, but it’s unlikely to do much on either front.

    The original announcement referred to “major investments to improve vital road structures”, with approximately 3,000 bridges currently unable to support the heaviest vehicles, with the package also including £590m to take forward the LTC.

    It made no reference to enhancement schemes on local roads, but was very much focused on making “vital road structures…both more resilient to extreme weather events and to the demands of modern transport”.

    In a further announcement in July, the DfT claimed in July to have “green-lit” 28 local road enhancement schemes, referring to:

    £1 billion to enhance the local road network and create a new structures fund

    As I wrote last week, roads minister Simon Lightwood told shadow transport secretary Richard Holden in a parliamentary written answer that £24bn capital funding for roads over the next four years:

    includes £1 billion for key local highway enhancement projects and a new Structures Fund for repairing run-down bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels.

    The DfT has now confirmed that the £1bn covers the Structures Fund and enhancement schemes on local roads, with an additional £590m specifically for developing the LTC.

    It’s not clear why Lightwood thought the £1bn was something to boast about as it is the same as the estimated cost of just one of National Highways enhancement schemes – the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet.

    (more…)

  • Bike theft claims require further investigation

    A transport minister has tried to quash the story that British Transport Police (BTP) will not investigate bike thefts outside stations where the bicycle has been left for more than two hours.

    BTP have themselves tried a few times to counter the story, which appears to have first appeared in a report earlier this month from the BBC’s Tom Edwards.

    Critics say the BTP policy means those facilities are not secure and theft has effectively been decriminalised.

    The BTP said: “The more time our officers spend reviewing CCTV… the less time they have available for patrolling railway stations and trains, investigating crimes which cause the most harm.”

    The problem with the story is that even though the online version had a shot of a document headed “Volume Crime Assessment Factors” that referred to “if the cycle has been left outside the location for over 2 hours”, it wasn’t clear whether this was fully determinative, or, as the word suggests, a factor to be taken into account.

    (more…)

  • ORR praises National Highways as casualties increase

    As National Highways’ safety record gets worse, the spin from both the company’s chief executive and its regulator continues.

    The latest government data shows that 1,931 people were killed or seriously injured (KSI) on the strategic road network (SRN) in 2024. This is an increase of 23 people (1%) compared to 2023.

    So the number of KSIs is going up when it is supposed to be going down.

    In a blog post, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) notes that this is 38% below the (2005-09) baseline against which National Highways is required to achieve a 50% reduction by the end of this year, “which means that National Highways needs to achieve a further reduction of 12 percentage points (381 KSI casualties) if it is to achieve its target”.

    The ORR says:

    The latest figures confirm that it is now almost certain the target will not be met.

    Note that the regulator says the target will not be met, rather than that National Highways will miss the target.

    (more…)

  • Making it up as they go along

    A fascinating exchange between two lords has shown the shallowness of the government’s approach to investing in the railways.

    Veteran LibDem peer Lord Rennard asked His Majesty’s Government:

    what assessment they have made of the benefits of expanding local rail services to local economies, and of increasing rail services into cities to reduce road congestion, improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions.

    The reply from transport minister Lord Hendy was basically that the question only arises if civil servants have a specific proposal in front of them, rather than taking a strategic approach, or for example when they have already decided that a major road scheme is the answer:

    Assessments of the benefits of expanding local rail services to local economies, and of increasing rail services into cities, are assessed on a case-by-case basis to reflect local economic conditions, using Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG).

    Expanded local rail services can help drive local economic growth by opening up new development opportunities, unlocking housing, reducing costs for businesses and supporting people into work. 

    Hendy’s answer then descended into something between wishful thinking and lying:

    The Government recognises the crucial role rail plays in delivering these benefits and is backing rail with the funding needed. The 2025 spending review committed £10.2 billion provided for rail enhancements in the period over the next four years.

    So let’s take the proposed upgrade at Ely Junction, a rail enhancement that everyone thinks would make a difference to freight and passengers services.

    (more…)

  • Airport expansion “risks lose-lose”

    A parliamentary committee has published a report on the government’s plans to add more airport capacity, the gist of which is that both the economic case and the climate impact are distinctly dodgy.

    It follows ministers talking up plans to add a new runway to Heathrow, despite claiming that it will “only go ahead if it aligns with our legal obligations on climate change”.

    Adding to the scepticism from Transport Committee chair Ruth Cadbury that I reported on Wednesday, the Environmental Audit Committee states starkly:

    Whilst the Government support for airport expansion has been largely based on its expectation of economic growth, the Government has been unable to direct the Committee to any evidence that supports its assertion.

    On climate change, the committee says:

    The mitigation measures the Government is relying on to decarbonise the industry, primarily Sustainable Aviation Fuel, efficiency savings and emissions offsetting, each have their limits. However, the Government has so far not factored in these limitations. This leaves substantial risk to the UK target of Net Zero by 2050.

    Summing it all up, it says:

    The Government is yet to set out how it will ensure climate, environment and biodiversity targets can be delivered whilst consenting to airport expansion; and what level of economic growth the UK can expect from this significant infrastructure development.

    (more…)

Subscribe

Subscribe to get our the latest stories in your inbox.