Hapless roads minister Simon Lightwood continues to own the cover-up over the unpublished evaluation reports on smart motorways, while giving nothing away.
To recap, the Department for Transport (DfT) is sitting on a total of 14 Post Opening Performance Evaluation (POPE) reports, at least nine of which were due to be completed by National Highways in 2022, and will not allow the government-owned company so publish them.
Rotherham MP Sarah Champion (pictured, left) has asked two parliamentary questions (so far). The first was:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions she has had with National Highways on Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) reports; and what her planned timetable is for publication of existing unpublished POPE reports.
In response to which, Lightwood merely owned the cover-up without answering the question:
Post opening project evaluation (POPE) reports are detailed and complex evaluations and it is right that we take the time to fully assure findings. We are committed to transparency and will provide an update on publication in due course.
Update: National Highways has told me that the DfT is sitting on a total of 14 reports. Of these, nine are five years after and five are one year after.
National Highways has said it will publish the reports on smart motorway performance that the Department for Transport (DfT) has been suppressing for nearly three years once ministers have decided how to spin the “complicated” data.
As I have reported, ministers called in the Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) reports, at least nine of which were due to be completed by National Highways in 2022, and have not allowed the government-owned company so publish them, supposedly while it carries out “assurance”.
The reports could show that individual smart motorway schemes are failing on issues such as safety, the environment and their impact on the economy.
I asked both National Highways and the DfT to disclose the reports under the Freedom of Information Act but the company has refused under section 22 (1), claiming that it had agreed “a clear route” to publication with the DfT.
Among other “public interest” reasons for withholding the data it said:
We have agreed an approximate date for release by DfT pre Christmas 2025 (subject to DfT agreeing the comms handling plan.
Publication will take place once other specified actions have taken place including briefing of ministers, agreement on a comms plan and final quality assurance.
It explained that the POPE are “complicated” and that it is in the public interest “that the communication of the results is led by the DfT”.
Significantly, National Highways added that the safety sections “include further analysis of data that is already in the public domain, and which has been reported on by NH in its annual stocktake and safety reports”.
Unable to resist spinning the findings even in a supposedly objective balancing exercise, National Highways added:
The POPE reports support the conclusion already drawn that Smart Motorways are amongst the country’s safest roads.
This is clearly the DfT’s concern – National Highways can amalgamate data to disguise the fact that individual schemes are less safe than they want to admit but POPE reports are at a scheme level.
The Department for Transport’s (DfT) claim that tap-in, tap-out payment for trains has been “expanded across south-east England” has to be one of the most misleading press releases I have seen for a long time.
It’s misleading not only because it’s by no means the universal coverage that the word “across” implies but because the programme is nowhere near the coverage that should have been achieved by the end of last year.
The good news is that the addition of the 50 new stations to the Transport for London (TfL) system in four weeks’ time, including Stansted and Southend airports, means that passengers travelling to every London airport will be able to use contactless ticketing – assuming that they could tap in when then started their journeys.
But, as I have reported extensively, this is part of a programme of 233 stations that TfL is delivering for the DfT – effectively extending the Oyster network – that was originally due to be completed by the end of 2024.
It’s the first instalment on the “main phase” of 180 stations, with the “initial phase” of 53 stations being completed earlier this year, nearly two years late.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has confirmed that it is no longer pledging to publish its new Road Safety Strategy this year, despite a very recent pledge from a minister.
Our Road Safety Strategy is under development and will include a broad range of policies. We intend to publish by the end of the year.
But in (multiple) subsequent answers, such as this one just a few days later, she has only said e.g.
We will set out more details in due course.
I asked the DfT if it still intends to publish the road safety strategy by the end of the year and a spokesperson told me that “in due course” – i.e. no public target date – is its current line.
It should be a great embarrassment for ministers. In August “government sources” briefed the Times that the strategy is “due to be published in the autumn”, as well as spinning quite a lot of what might be in it.
I don’t think transport secretary Heidi Alexander was asked about the timing of the document when appearing before the Transport Committee yesterday, although she did mention that it was on its way.
Ministers are fond of saying that the new strategy will be “the first for 10 years”.
At this rate their achievement will be even better, perhaps the first for 11 years.
Recent parliamentary answers from transport ministers suggest that Labour is completely stuck on many of key issues it should be addressing.
In response to a question from fellow Labour MP Darren Paffey about the “planned timetable is for announcing further details on the regulation of private electric scooters, as indicated in the Advanced Manufacturing Sector Plan”, roads minister Simon Lightwood said:
The Government is committed to pursuing legislative reform for micromobility vehicles when parliamentary time allows.
We understand the importance of providing a clear legislative timeline and my Department is working with colleagues across government to secure this.
So another example of when being committed to something doesn’t mean actually doing anything about it. Maybe just extend the trials again?
Other MPs have been asking what is happening about pavement parking, including Labour MP Damian Egan. Lilian Greenwood is fully aware that it’s an issue that needs to be addressed, but:
The Government fully understands the serious problems that vehicles parked on the pavement, and other obstacles on the pavement, can cause for pedestrians, especially for people with mobility or sight impairments and disabled people with wheelchairs, prams or pushchairs. To inform next steps, the Department has considered the potential options, assessing the costs and benefits to households and businesses, which includes well-being, social isolation and economic opportunities. This assessment drew on existing evidence, including the 2020 pavement parking consultation. We will announce the next steps and publish our formal response as soon as possible.
It’s now the fifth anniversary of that pavement parking consultation closing. Neither the Tories nor Labour has had the courage to take it forward.
And then there is the promised and widely trailed road safety strategy, “the first for ten years”.
Our Road Safety Strategy is under development and will include a broad range of policies. We intend to publish by the end of the year.
But in subsequent answers, such as this one, she appears to have backed away from this target date, saying:
More details will be published in due course.
“In due course” is of course what officials and ministers say when they can’t or don’t want to give a date. I’ve asked the DfT to clarify and transport secretary Heidi Alexander has been in front of the Transport Committee this morning.
Of course, if Lightwood is to be believed, the department is still carrying out “assurance” of evaluations of smart motorway schemes that National Highways completed in 2022.
The question is, are they incompetent, or just kicking the tricky stuff into the long grass?
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.
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.
The Department for Transport’s (DfT) longstanding roads delivery director, Kate Cohen, has taken over the role of senior responsible owner of the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC).
The news, reported by Highways magazine, follows a report in the Guardian, since denied by the DfT, that the government-owned company had been stripped of responsibility for the £10bn+ project.
According to the DfT website, Cohen is director of Roads and Projects Infrastructure Delivery, a section that includes responsibility for the LTC.
Speaking to Highways, National Highways chief executive Nick Harris stressed that the company remains responsible for delivering the LTC, but National Highways’ Sean Pidcock had been its senior responsible owner since 2021.
Harris said:
The DfT has recognised the size of the Lower Thames Crossing project means they have to put focus on it and I am really chuffed to see Kate Cohen becoming the SRO. She is going to focus on the LTC and we have worked with Kate on the rest of the portfolio and I think that is a decision that makes a lot of sense.
While maintaining the usual refusal to comment on “leaked” documents, the Department for Transport (DfT) insisted that nothing has changed and suggested that most of the Guardian story was based on a misunderstanding.
As I noted yesterday, the £10bn+ plan to build a tunnel and new roads linking Kent and Essex was already classified as a “Tier 1” infrastructure project. The DfT pointed out that all such projects are “governed and funded” by the government and that key decisions “are a matter for ministers”, while delivery is the responsibility of National Highways.
This has not changed.
The DfT added that, as the Guardian pointed out, that National Highways is responsible for the development of the crossing and will publish a breakdown of costs in its annual report, with decisions over the scope and funding of the project are taken by ministers.
It said that as this is how Tier 1 projects are governed, this directly contradicts the claim that National Highways has been stripped of the project.
The DfT added that the project’s scope of the Lower Thames Crossing has been legally fixed by its Development Consent Order (DCO) which was granted by transport secretary Heidi Alexander in March, and that any material changes to a DCO, including scope, must be approved by her.
A DfT spokesperson said:
Backed by £590m, the Lower Thames Crossing is the most significant road building project in a generation – and will cut local congestion, better link up motorists and businesses in the Midlands and North with key ports in the South East, and spreading growth throughout the regions, as set in our Plan for Change.
As I pointed out yesterday, Labour has actually given the project £250m as well as the £590m. More on this soon.
Transport Insights 
Leave a comment