Transport Insights

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

Author

Chris Ames

Tag: national highways

  • NEAR, far…Watchdog and National Highways get close

    Perhaps the most shocking revelation from the latest Strategic Roads User Survey (SRUS) annual report from “independent” watchdog Transport Focus is the inclusion of a “commentary” from National Highways in which it declares the two organisations to be in a “partnership”.

    In the report itself, Transport Focus takes the same line as the government-owned company that it is supposed to be keeping tabs on – that a further fall in overall satisfaction from 71% to 69% is not the continuation of a trend (it is) but is related to roadworks to deliver the National Emergency Area Retrofit (NEAR) programme.

    Here is what Transport Focus had to say:

    Our analysis indicates a key part of the decrease in overall satisfaction has been the roadworks to deliver the National Emergency Area Retrofit (NEAR) programme.

    And here is National Highways’ commentary:

    Our 2024/25 customer satisfaction score is 2.4 per cent lower than the same period last year. This reflects the impact of major improvement works across the network – especially the National Emergency Area Retrofit programme – which have temporarily disrupted journeys.

    (more…)

  • DfT doubles down on planned publication

    National Highways’ delivery plan and safety action plan for the current financial year will be published this month, the Department for Transport (DfT) has told me.

    The government-owned company’s Interim Settlement for the current year, during which no road investment strategy is in place, states that to support progress towards achieving its December 2025 casualty reduction target “National Highways must deliver a series of safety improvements set out in its Safety Action Plan for 2025/26”.

    The safety action plan has not been published, but in May roads minister Lilian Greenwood told fellow Labour MP Ruth Cadbury, who is chair of the Transport Select Committee, that it “will form part of National Highways 2025-26 delivery plan for the Interim Settlement which will be published in the coming months”.

    I have requested the plan under the Freedom of Information Act from the DfT, National Highways and the Office of Rail and Road but each refused my request on the spurious grounds that a document that was not produced for publication is intended for future publication alongside another document.

    In response to a review request, the DfT has now told me: “We expect the requested information to be published in July 2025.”

    (more…)

  • Throwing money down the utilities

    Transport Action Network has published the latest piece in its National Highways Watch series, which I researched and wrote, looking at how the government-owned company regularly overspends on enhancements projects.

    It is, I hope, a comprehensive account on past, current and future projects, as well as scrapped schemes like the A303 Stonehenge Tunnel.

    Among schemes that the Labour government has not yet admitted it can’t afford are the £10bn+ Lower Thames Crossing and the £1.5bn A66 Northern Trans-Pennine project, which is currently stuck in the Department for Transport’s value for money review.

    Both have very low benefit cost ratios and seem to be being driven by politics more than anything.

    Last month’s Spending Review did not mention the A66 scheme, something that the Northern Echo noticed, before reporting what it optimistically called an “update”, based on a Treasury Statement.

    A spokesperson for the Treasury said: “The Department for Transport will set out their long-term plan for the Strategic Road Network through the third Road Investment Strategy.

    “Further details on individual schemes like the A66 will be provided by the Department for Transport in due course.”

    Labour is rightly using a hiatus between five-year road investment strategies to rethink what it want to fund but the government has previously said the RIS would be aligned with the spending review and “in due course” is governments’ much-mocked way of refusing to give a firm date.

    So not much of an update.

    (more…)