Transport Insights

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

Author

Chris Ames

Tag: lower-thames-crossing

  • 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…)

  • NAO slow to wake up to Thames tunnel risks

    I very much agree with ‪Transport Action Network‬’s (TAN) good news, bad news take on the National Audit Office saying that it will be taking a look at the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC)…eventually.

    On Bluesky, TAN says:

    Good news- We’ve received a response from the NAO and they will be auditing the Lower Thames Crossing project!

    Bad news- we do not have a start date! Meanwhile public money is being thrown at this damaging road scheme.

    If you look at the latest letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General, Gareth Davies, he only says the NAO will look into the scheme at some point in the future, and not because it sees any particular issue with it:

    The Lower Thames Crossing is a significant programme and is of high parliamentary and public interest. I anticipate that I will examine and report on the Lower Thames Crossing. My teams are tracking activity on the programme. This will inform my decision on the right timing for audit work.

    But there are big problems. The main one, as TAN points out, is that the government has committed £3.1bn of public money to a scheme that has no business case.

    Not only is the full business case not due until 2028, but the Department for Transport (DfT) is claiming that the outline business case is only in draft form. The NAO has said that decisions to commit public money were based on this document.

    And the DfT is planning to give the developer of the allegedly privately-funded project an additional income stream with the revenue from the existing Dartford Crossings.

    In the circumstances, the NAO looks very complacent. Let’s hope they don’t regret it or – perhaps worse – box themselves into a space where they have to pretend it’s all fine because to admit that it is a shitshow will be to point the finger at themselves.

    Leave a comment

  • Tunnel spared from deadly cuts

    With the fallout from the shelving of two National Highways road schemes continuing, the BBC’s reporting has reflected to some extent the fact that not everyone thinks new roads are a good idea, although thankfully the Lower Thames Crossing has been spared!

    In the midlands, the BBC asks a question that presumes that new roads are a good idea:

    Is the East Midlands being neglected again with scrapped road schemes?

    The article focuses on regional mayor Claire Ward, who is still cross:

    Ward felt she’d been making progress on behalf of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, securing, for example, £2bn of funding for local transport projects in last year’s Spending Review.

    So what has gone wrong?

    So far we have “neglected” and “wrong” but if you can read past what fascist reform thinks there are at least alternative voices:

    The road schemes are not universally popular, either, and local campaign groups have long argued against them on environmental grounds.

    Paul Smith, who chairs the parish council in the village of Winthorpe, near the A46 Newark bypass, says “a lot of people are relieved”.

    And the article links to an earlier article with Derby City Council leader Nadine Peatfield questioning the case for if the “recently shelved A38 scheme” in the city, and comment from Adrian Howlett, from the Stop the A38 expansion group:

    Howlett said the group was “disappointed” that there had been no announcement that other options would be explored, and described the current scheme as “completely outdated”.

    He added: “Let’s actually get some investment into Derby that isn’t just a massive roads-dependent scheme and actually looks at all the options.”

    Which is a reminder that the shelving of the two schemes is not the government seeing sense, just cutting transport investment.

    (more…)

  • Back of an envelope?

    The question of why ministers are putting billions of pounds of our money into the “privately-funded” Lower Thames Crossing two years before a full business case has become even curiouser with the Department for Transport (DfT) insisting that the scheme does not even have a completed outline business case (OBC).

    The DfT has turned down a request from Transport Action Network’s (TAN) Becca Lush for the OBC to be disclosed under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) on the grounds (inter alia) that:

    this information is draft and the outline business case has not been finalised

    This is quite a surprise, given that Lush quoted the National Audit Office (NAO) as telling TAN

    At outline business case stage, the decision to commit further public funding to the project and to proceed with government’s preferred financial model for the project was subject to departmental and ministerial approvals by DfT and HM Treasury.

    Interestingly, the DfT’s refusal letter acknowledges that:

    (more…)

  • Private LTC is a bottomless pit of public funding

    The Department for Transport (DfT) has admitted giving the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) another £174m of public money, despite claims that the allocation in the Autumn Budget was the last, bringing total public funding for the privately funded scheme to £3.1bn.

    The Guardian reports:

    The £174m of extra cash will be used to fund public works on both sides of the tunnel and will be found from existing budgets, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.

    The extra funding was spotted by Transport Action Network (TAN), which noted the gap between the £1.48bn announced up to and including the Autumn Budget and the £1.66bn in the (March) Road Investment Strategy.

    The DfT also told the Guardian:

    We have committed £3.1bn to the Lower Thames Crossing to date, including £891m to complete the publicly funded works needed to unlock private investment.

    This is around £100m more than the previously estimated £3bn, which includes around £1.5bn already spent. It’s subject to rounding and was probably a bit under £3bn and is now a bit over £3.1bn.

    Becca Lush of TAN told the Guardian:

    (more…)

  • DfT blind to sunk costs risks of Thames tunnel

    If you want a definition of hubris, look no further than what the Department for Transport (DfT) and ministers are saying about the risk that the billions being put into the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) will be wasted.

    In one of the Debrief Drop In Sessions that took place just after the Road Investment Strategy was released in March, a wholly understandable question was:

    If £1,655m is being spent on preparatory works for the Lower Thames Crossing before any private sector delivery agreement is in place, is there a risk that this money could be wasted?

    This is actually part of a total of around £3bn of public money put in so far, in advance of a form of private finance that is a long way from being put in place.

    The DfT’s response is typical of its current lines about the issue:

    The Government remains committed to delivering the Lower Thames Crossing, the most significant road investment project in a generation, and to securing private sector involvement to support its construction and operation. The £1,655m included in RIS3 represents Government funding for the essential preparatory and enabling works required before the scheme transfers to a regulated private sector entity. This includes activities such as procurement, all of which are necessary to progress the project and would be required irrespective of the precise timing of any private sector transaction.

    So far, we have an assertion of commitment, a bit of PR spin, and an explanation of where the money is going. The issue of whether it might not happen at all is simply ignored.

    The answer continued:

    The project is expected to be delivered using a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model, under which responsibility for construction and long term operation would pass to the private sector part way through the third road period. As part of this approach, there is an expectation that the private sector will reimburse the taxpayer for some of the costs incurred ahead of the transfer, helping to reduce the overall burden on the public finances. The total spend by Government will depend on the final timing and terms of the transaction, which are still being developed, with the current expectation that the project will transfer in 2028.

    This again ignores the possibility that the project might not go ahead at all, acknowledging uncertainty only over the extent to which the public money put in might be recouped if it does.

    But there are known and acknowledged material risks for a scheme costing well over £10bn that will not have a full business case until 2028, for which there is no legislation in place and where there is “significant uncertainty” around the expectation that the Office of National Statistics will declare the scheme to be off the government’s balance sheet.

    The Accounting Officer Assessment for the scheme, which is itself a piece of spin, admits:

    (more…)

  • A cast iron non denial

    National Highways has published a response to the Sunday Times story this week that said the £11bn Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) is “poised to be built with foreign steel”, but I’m not sure whether its a carelessly worded rebuttal or a carefully worded non denial.

    The gist of the Sunday Times story is that UK-based steel manufacturers are not able, and will not be able, to produce the “low embodied carbon steel” that the government-owned company has promised to use as part of its greenwashing.

    Industry sources say this will exclude domestic manufacturers from the tender and force ministers to approve the provision of steel from abroad that meets the UK’s green targets. 

    Clearly the alternative to sourcing steel from abroad is to drop the “low embodied carbon steel” pledge.

    There is also a question of *when* as the tunnel is nowhere near being built but:

    Tata Steel is in the process of building an electric arc furnace on the site of Britain’s biggest blast furnace steelworks in Port Talbot, south Wales. It is understood that the furnace will not be up and running to tender for the multimillion-pound Lower Thames Crossing contract.

    The National Highways webpage starts off by saying the Sunday Times claim that the LTC is set to be built with foreign steel “is not the case”, adding:

    No procurement process for steel is currently under way.

    Our Delivery Partners have carried out early market engagement simply to understand existing capability ahead of launching procurements later this year. This engagement shows that the UK steel sector can meet between 85% and 90% of the project’s requirements, reflecting both the capability and ambition of British manufacturers.

    (more…)

  • Taxpayers to cough up even more for “privately funded” Thames Tunnel

    The Times story on the Lower Thames Crossing raises further doubts that the £11bn project will be privately financed, even beyond the £3bn that the taxpayer is due to put in before anything happens.

    The taxpayer is set to lose net income of at least £120 million a year as a result of the financial arrangements for a new road tunnel under the Thames, The Times can reveal.

    Government plans for the Lower Thames Crossing are built on handing the revenues from the existing tolls on the Dartford Crossing to a new private operator, which will be allowed to keep them in perpetuity.

    My take on this is that if you are diverting £120m of revenue annually and for ever to pay for a project, you are at least partially funding that project (again, beyond the £3bn) and no amount of smoke and mirrors can disguise that.

    The Times reports that:

    Under the Transport Act 2000, these revenues go directly to the DfT, not into the Treasury’s coffers, and must be used for improving transport. The DfT did not respond to TAN’s question as to whether this income would be “included in DfT’s future budgets as a loss” or if it had been factored into the cost-benefit analysis for the Lower Thames project. The DfT also declined to answer similar questions from The Times.

    This is clear obfuscation from the DfT but, whether the money is a hit to the transport budget or will be refunded by the Treasury, it’s taxpayers’ money.

    Elsewhere in the paper, the piece’s author, Alistair Osborne, comments

    …you’d think that before ministers committed £3.1 billion of taxpayer’s money and started early construction works, they might have bothered to produce a full business case for the link, instead of opting to wait until 2028. Or explained why it’s still a zippy scheme, despite it seeming to fail the DfT’s own “value for money” test. Or actually come clean about the implications of its “preferred financing option”, which would see both the crossing and existing taxpayer income transfer to a private sector owner in perpetuity.

    I made similar observations here last month.

    Having said that, the current revelations on the funding represent great work by TAN (Transport Action Network) and the journalist.

  • Facts won’t be fixed on Thames tunnel till 2028

    Transport Action Network (TAN) has seized upon the confirmation that the Lower Thames Crossing will not open until 2034, but even this date is said not to be realistic and the mega-project is not even due to have a full business case (FBC) until 2028.

    The delay to the FBC means that Labour will continue to throw money (£3bn) at the project before working out whether it is worth doing and the rest of us will be kept in the dark.

    TAN has pointed to the appointment letter naming Kate Cohen as the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the project:

    You are required to undertake this role until the end of the project planned for 2034, or until the responsibility is transferred. 

    In fact, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority’s annual report 2024-25 states:

    Compared to financial year 23/24-Q4, the project’s end-date at 24/25-Q4 remained at 20/04/2034.

    […]

    This baseline is no longer viable after a second Written Ministerial Statement was issued on the 4 October 2024 extending the Development Consent Order Decision date until 23 May 2025 in order to allow more time for the application to be considered further, including as part of the spending review [Development Consent Order Consent granted 25 March 2025]. The project is currently working on the impact to the Open for Traffic following the second Written Ministerial Statement.

    No-one seems to have told Matt Palmer, executive director of the Lower Thames Crossing, about 2034. In this recent press release about a non-existent piece of tunnelling kit, he said:

    The search for our giant tunnel boring machine is now on, putting us on track to open the Lower Thames Crossing in the early 2030s. 

    (more…)

  • Thames Tunnel hole gets bigger

    The Financial Times has picked up on the spiralling costs of the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), as well as the huge sums that we will all be putting in, before private finance comes riding over the hill.

    Taxpayers will contribute more than £3bn to the Lower Thames Crossing despite ministers’ plans to seek private finance for the most expensive new highway in British history.

    The cost of the project, the first wholly new crossing across the river Thames to the east of London in 60 years, has risen from an estimate of between £5.3bn and £6.8bn in 2017 to almost £11bn, the Treasury has confirmed.

    The first figure, the £3bn of public money, may be news to some people but it is simply adding £1.2bn of historic costs to the £1.8bn that the Treasury has allocated across this financial year and the next three, including nearly a billion in last week’s Budget.

    But the cost increase to a current price tag of £11bn means a big rise in the part that the government is hoping to get private finance to contribute, to get them into a hole on a project that is otherwise unaffordable.

    The government hopes it will secure about £7.5bn of private capital, up from a figure of £6.3bn set out in March by National Highways, the public body responsible for the scheme between Kent and Essex.

    Predictably, Transport Action Network (TAN) has condemned the “utterly predictable” news, which it says will lead to significantly higher tolls being charged at the existing Dartford Crossing and the LTC.

    TAN has previously calculated that tolls at Dartford could triple to pay for the LTC. Director Chris Todd said:

    (more…)