Tag: dft

• Road investment planning goes out the window

  I have three stories and a commentary piece in the latest issue of Local Transport Today, with the connecting theme being that neither the government nor National Highways are covering themselves in glory when it comes to planning capital spending on England’s roads.

  The main angle of a piece (also on TransportXtra) on the various reports on National Highways that get published at this time of year is that the company isn’t in the best shape to deliver an expanded renewals programme as the third Road Investment Strategy (RIS3) begins.

  National Highways must improve its governance to ensure the efficient delivery of the new Road Investment Strategy (RIS3), the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has stated.

  The regulator criticised the company for not taking full advantage of the opportunities to get ready for RIS3, “meaning there is an increased risk to delivery”, and called for it to demonstrate how it will strengthen its planning and controls to manage the higher level of funding and activity.

  

  A comment piece alongside this story notes the continuing movement of goalposts on what National Highways is supposed to deliver under the RIS framework, including ministers shelving two major schemes within months of the document being published.

  (more…)

  2026.07.31

• Schrödinger’s road scheme, Schrödinger’s business case

  A new report from the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) has shown how the Department for Transport is playing fast and loose with public money over the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) – and basically lying to avoid releasing the mega-project’s business case.

  Highways magazine reports that, in terms of NISTA’s Delivery Confidence Assessment in its Annual Report 2025/2026:

  None of the Department for Transport’s (DfT) highways projects were rated red; however, the £10bn Lower Thames Crossing and the £1.5bn A66 Northern Trans-Pennine scheme did slip into amber.

  But, as Highways notes, the LTC’s Senior Responsible Owner (the DfT’s Kate Cohen) decided that the project should be bumped up to a green rating.

  

  Her commentary on its DCA states:

  Compared to financial year 24/25 Q4, the SRO Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at 25/26 Q4 improved from Amber to Green.
  […]
  The NISTA DCA rating for 25/26 Q4 is Amber, whilst we recognise that there are still risks to delivery, the SRO is content that sufficient mitigations were in place as of March-26 and therefore rated the DCA as Green. The project DCA is reviewed monthly. The Outline Business Case was updated and approved by the DfT Investment Committee in October 2025. This marks the transition from full public sector funding to a future private sector RAB model, with the private sector to deliver the remainder of the scheme and take on Dartford Crossing operations in 2028.

  The statement that the private sector operator will take on Dartford Crossing operations – and revenue – in 2028, as it starts construction, is the first time that this has been stated explicitly.

  It means that the state will be putting in (even more) public funding from the outset, again giving the lie to the claim that this is privately financed.

  And this also (again) gives the lie to the DfT’s claim that outline business case that it has refused to release is in “draft form”.

  (more…)

  2026.07.15

• DfT sets new record for hype

  The statistics regulator is to have a very quiet word with the people at the Department for Transport (DfT) who have a habit of making up claims of “record” funding but, as usual with regulators, the touch is so light as to be almost intangible.
  
  I grassed the DfT up to the Office for Statistics Regulation over this claim in a press release about £3m funding to help councils with bus franchising:

  local authorities are already using record government funding to introduce schemes such as discounted and free fares, as well as new services to previously unserved rural areas

  which was repeated by minister Simon Lightwood.

  

  And this one in a press release about the mythical structures fund:

  a record £1 billion total package to enhance England’s roads

  Bizarrely, the DfT told me that

  the minister’s quote refers to the fact that this is the first time ever that multi-year bus settlement have been provided to all local transport authorities

  (more…)

  2026.05.08

• How Labour factionalism got us to Better Connected

  In a piece that is mainly about the Mandelson scandal, Tom Clark of Prospect addresses the factionalism at the top of government that led to the resignation of the previous transport secretary, Louise Haigh.
  
  You will remember that No 10 put the knife into Haigh by leaking the news of a trivial conviction relating to a mobile phone to a friendly (Tory) Newspaper.
  
  It was obvious that Haigh was far too radical on transport policy for the right wingers in No 10 under the then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, and that her defenestration was intended to allow someone like the more driver-friendly Heidi Alexander to take over.
  
  In a piece titled The Mandelson saga is really about Labour factionalism, Clark argues that Starmer’s appointment of Mandelson “shows how rule-by-clique dominates his party”.

  He notes that fired Foreign Office mandarin Olly Robbins revealed that Number 10 had enquired about an ambassadorship for former press chief Matthew Doyle, “another veteran partisan of the right in Labour’s internecine wars”.

  

  Regarding Haigh in particular, he adds:

  To grasp the zealotry of Labour’s ruling clique, compare the cavalier disregard for convention in advancing Mandelson and, potentially, Doyle, with the stance applied to Starmer’s first transport secretary, Louise Haigh. Haigh was widely seen as a success in her job, but never regarded as “one of us”. Before becoming a frontbencher, Haigh had judged she had better fill Starmer in on an embarrassing old conviction – albeit one so minor the court had left her unpunished – regarding a company mobile phone. Someone or other dug this detail out of a desk draw and handed it to the Times, before it was decided the story had become such a distraction that Haigh would have to go.

  Haigh was resigned just after launching a call for ideas on an integrated national transport strategy.
  
  She said of the strategy:

  (more…)

  2026.04.22

• DfT stretches £1bn for local roads into “record” funding

  The Department for Transport (DfT) has doubled down on its refusal to reveal how much money is in its so-called “Structures Fund” for “fixing” bridges, flyovers and tunnels on English local authority roads.
  
  By way of a recap, all it is saying is that the fund shares £1bn (implicitly up to 2029-30) with local authority road upgrades, another funding stream that is likely to be very heavily oversubscribed.
  
  As I have pointed out, not only does the absence of dedicated funding call into question whether it should be called a fund at all, but the fact that some structures on the local authority network already get upgrade funding when they need “fixing” calls into question whether a discrete fund – as opposed to a statement of priorities – is even necessary.
  
  What we do know is that, unlike other local road upgrades, funding for structures is currently a one-off under the 2025 Spending Review and councils have a limited window this spring to put in bids.

  Funding decisions will be announced in Autumn 2026, with all successful schemes required to complete works by March 2030.

  The DfT has suggested to me that it may be able to say how much is in the fund when funding decisions are announced, which is in some ways a statement of the obvious, as we could tot up all the individual allocations.
  
  The department has also said that:

  A local contribution must be included in the submission. No minimum local contribution to costs has been set, however proposals with a higher contribution will be assessed positively.

  

  This means that the DfT could fit its contribution within a set budget, if it exists, by adjusting local authority contributions.
  
  It has been suggested to me by someone who knows about this sort of thing that the DfT may be keeping the size of the pot under wraps so as neither to give the impression that it is not worth applying or to suggest that it will fund any old scheme.
  
  The DfT has said it expects the “fund” to be oversubscribed, which would of course suit it because:

  Details of schemes that do not receive a funding award will be retained by the department in support of building the evidence base for investing in local highways structures in the future.

  This implicitly means post-2030 under a future spending review.
  
  With the DfT pointing out that…

  (more…)

  2026.04.22

• All structure and no funding?

  The launch of the Structures Fund today comes with the usual mix of hype and a lack of detail, with the continued failure to confirm that the fund has dedicated funding again strengthening doubts that it actually exists.

  From the fanfare that the Department for Transport has given the fund in a press release headed “fixing the foundations”, you would think it has solved the problem:

  Government is backing councils across England to fix crumbling bridges, failing flyovers and deteriorating tunnels as the new Structures Fund opens today in the latest move to back drivers.

  Decades of neglected infrastructure have led to weight-restricted crossings adding miles to everyday journeys and deteriorating flyovers, leaving communities unsure when the next closure will come. The new fund will put money directly into the hands of councils to tackle the most pressing cases they cannot afford to fix alone.

  The fund is now open for bids and will inject cash into repairing critical structures across England, ensuring transport infrastructure is more resilient to extreme weather, while making everyday journeys safer, smoother and more dependable.

  The phrase “across England” – used twice – is typical PR language to make it look as if the funding will be universal, where as we are very much back to the bad old days of competitive bidding, with the reality being that money will be put into the hands of *some* councils and some journeys will improve.

  

  Always happy to go along with the hype, transport secretary Heidi Alexander is reported to have said:

  (more…)

  2026.04.15

• Is Labour doing a John Terry?

  The Department for Transport (DfT) has – perhaps justifiably – praised councils for doing good things with the bus funding it is giving them, but once again spoiled a good news story with hype.

  On the back of announcing just £3m for six mayoral authorities to progress bus franchising, the DfT has proclaimed:

  Millions of bus passengers across England are benefitting from cheaper fares, new routes and better services as local authorities are putting government funding to work in their communities.

  With the cost-of-living crisis continuing to play a part in people’s everyday lives, local authorities are stepping up to make buses work better for everyone, reducing the burden on households.

  That’s very positive, as is:

  These schemes are all backed by the government, with more than £3 billion invested through the Local Authority Bus Grant between 2026 and 2029 – money that local leaders can spend on the things passengers actually need.

  (Apart from the baffling but seemingly obligatory reference to subsidies being an investment.)

  But is the £3bn really “record” funding, as both the DfT and minister Simon Lightwood claim? There is no evidence in the press release to back this up and I have asked the DfT to justify it.

  

  The six authorities that are getting half a million quid each are:

  (more…)

  2026.04.13

• As you were

  It’s a sign of how desperate the government is for good news that today the Department for Transport (DfT) has issued a press release in which the prime minister claims that not putting up rail fares “will put more money in working people’s pockets”.

  It is indeed good news that fares have not gone up at the beginning of this month and if the DfT says this is the first freeze for 30 years, I am happy to believe them, although they seem to be happier pointing to increases under the Tories than last year’s increase.

  

  Here’s what Keir Starmer is claimed to have said:

  This freeze – the first since the 90s – will put more money in working people’s pockets. By keeping costs down we are making journeys more affordable for millions of people – putting train travel back into the service of passengers, not profits.

  I’m not sure how not charging people more is actively putting money in their pockets and of course the government takes the revenue risk on rail fares under National Rail Contracts.

  Meanwhile, the DfT says:

  With transport costs making up 14% of household spending, this cost-cutting move is providing real savings for passengers

  This is true but a bizarre thing to say all the same. Transport costs may make up 14% of household spending but rail fares could be as low as 1% of spending in the average household.

  It’s also quite funny that the DfT has used a picture (above) of old fashioned orange magnetic stripe tickets to illustrate the story – the ones the whole industry is trying to move away from. Just for fun, I left the caption in.

  But the DfT also rather stupidly refers to:

  building on the expansion of successful Pay As You Go and fares trials across the country

  In fact, the whole process of expanding pay as you go in the South East beyond London is and continues to be, a shambles.

  Of 50 stations that were due to go live in December, 20 (on Greater Anglia Routes) had to be delayed.

  2026.03.02

• Ministers fail to back “Structures Fund” with actual cash

  Eight months after ministers announced a fund to repair and “futureproof” local authority road structures, the Department for Transport (DfT) is unable to say how much money will be in the fund or how it might operate.

  

  The DfT has only just launched a targeted “stakeholder consultation” for its so-called “Structures Fund” just as the latest closure of a local authority road bridge was announced.

  In June ministers announced £1bn “to enhance and repair run down transport infrastructure and futureproof England’s road network” to be split between the structures fund and local road upgrades under what was called the Major Road Network/Large Local Majors (MRN/LLM) programme.

  But, despite claiming in a press release that it would “set out more detail about how funding will be allocated shortly”, the DfT has yet to finalise the budget for the fund, which means that funding for local authority road upgrades remains uncertain.

  This paralysis explains why the DfT refused last year to tell me how much the MRN/LLM budget was.

  I would argue that as the Structures Fund does not have dedicated funding, it cannot legitimately be called a fund.

  (more…)

  2026.02.13

• DfT budget shrinks without getting smaller

  It looks to me as if reported cut to the Department for Transport’s (DfT) budget merely reflects accounting changes that take into account increased business rate retention by Transport for London (TfL).

  New Civil Engineer reported what appeared to be a discrepancy between the DfT’s Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL), including HS2, as set out in the Spending Review against the same totals in the Autumn Budget.

  

  Across the five financial years from 2024-25 to 2028-29, this amounted to £2.4bn, the magazine said.

  Spending totals for all five years were set out as “plans”, rather than outturn, with totals only given three years ahead because, while the Spending Review set capital spending for 2029-30, it only set resource spending to 2028-29.

  The discrepancy in the DfT’s total Budget over the next three years is only £1.5bn, with the Budget figures actually showing an increase of £600m in 2027-28, compared against the Spending Review.

  The DfT has reportedly attributed the discrepancy to “accounting changes”, without explaining further.

  However, a reply from roads minister Simon Lightwood to a written parliamentary question from fellow Labour MP and Transport Committee member Alex Mayer may explain these accounting changes.

  Mayer asked what assessment and estimate ministers had made of the difference in the DfT’s capital DEL budget between the two documents across the five-year period.

  While Lightwood replied in terms the government’s capital DEL as a whole from 2025-26 to 2029-30, a footnote in his answer noted that the figures he quoted were “adjusted for TfL Business Rates Retention (£1.2bn p.a. from 2026-27)”.

  This change would see some of TfL’s capital spending being funded from retained business rates, rather than going through the DfT’s budget.

  2026.02.09