Tag: orr

• ORR covers for National Highways’ failure…again

  National Highways delivered just three quarters of the actions in its secret “Enhanced Safety Plan” for the final year of the 2020-25 roads period (RP2) but its regulator has again claimed that the company is “doing everything that it can” to “try and meet” its casualty reduction target, which it is likely to miss badly.

  

  The Office of Rail and Road’s (ORR) Annual assessment of National Highways’ performance – April 2024 to March 2025 includes a short section on road safety in which it appears to have once again moved the goalposts to spare National Highways’ blushes.

  The ORR’s (third) Annual assessment of safety performance on the strategic road network, published in March stated:

  National Highways’ enhanced safety plan set out 43 actions that the company would take to improve safety in the final year of RP2. These actions are in addition
  to its existing commitments to improve safety that are set out as part of RIS2, and within annual delivery plans.

  It revealed that by the end of January/February it had delivered just 22, comprising five road safety schemes, eight communication campaigns and nine ‘working with others’ actions.

  The new report discloses that:

  At the end of March 2025, the company had delivered 33 actions of the 43 actions that were included in its enhanced safety plan. It plans to deliver eight more by the end of 2025, with one scheme removed from the plan following objections from a local authority. The remaining action is related to the Roads Policing Review and will be taken forward once government publishes its response to the review.

  Despite promising to “hold National Highways to account” for delivery of this plan, the regulator praises its efforts:

  We consider that, in 2025, the company is doing everything that it can in the final year to try and meet the target…

  There is a clear sleight of hand from the regulator in redefining the year that it is talking about, from the final year of RP2 (i.e. 2024-25) to “the final year” of the calendar year 2025, by the end of which serious casualties should be down by a half.

  However, further to my post earlier today, the ORR seems to have dropped the claim that the 43 actions were “additional” to existing plans. I have asked it if it now accepts that it cannot verify this.  

  Leave a comment Cancel reply

  Δ

  2025.07.18

• Lax ORR fails hold National Highways to account

  All five road safety schemes that National Highways actually delivered under its “enhanced safety plan” for the last year of the second roads period fell under an existing safety programme, with no evidence that they were “beyond its previously planned activities”, as required by the company’s regulator.

  But the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), which demanded that the company produce the “enhanced plan” to address its poor casualty reduction record, failed to carry out any checks to ensure the actions were genuinely additional.

  In fact, both the company and the regulator have insisted (without evidence) that the actions in the enhanced safety plan, which was given to the ORR in March 2024, were “additional” to National Highways’ 2024-25 Delivery Plan Update, which was not published until this March and does not list specific activities.

  National Highways appears to have actually cut the funding available for safety improvements at the end of the whole 2020-25 roads period, including the year covered by the plan.

  The disclosure casts further doubt on the competence of the ORR and its willingness to hold National Highways to account, as it claims to do, after it refused to publish the plan but praised the company for “doing everything it reasonably can” to address its failing safety record.

  (more…)

  2025.07.18

• ORR spins the cuts to Network Rail

  I’ve been reading the Office of Rail and Road’s (ORR) Annual assessment of Network Rail 2024 to 2025 alongside the ORR’s press release on that and other reports on the rail industry and it seems as if the ORR is trying to spare the government’s blushes.

  The annual assessment, which is the ORR’s review of Network Rail’s performance during the first year of the five-year control period 7 (CP7), says up front:

  As we noted in our final determination for CP7, funding is constrained, reflecting wider fiscal conditions. In planning for this control period Network Rail has had to make choices about how expenditure should be prioritised to deliver best value for the railway now and in the future. Constrained funding means that Network Rail will be spending less on renewals and more on life-extending repairs and maintenance in CP7 than in CP6. As such, Network Rail forecasts a small reduction in the residual life of its assets, which will require effective risk management activities to be identified and implemented.

  As a result our monitoring of Network Rail for this control period is focussed on these risks, which if not effectively managed could result in a deterioration of train service performance in the latter part of the control period, will make delivering train performance very challenging for Great British Railways in the next funding period, and will lead to inefficient spend on infrastructure in the future.

  The closest the press release comes to addressing this is an opaque quote from chief executive John Larkinson:

  (more…)

  2025.07.17

• A1 cancellation lies – who knew what when?

  Local news outlets in the North East are reporting a potentially huge scandal over a recently cancelled National Highways scheme, with a shocking tale of deceit potentially involving the government-owned company, the previous (Tory) government and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).

  The Newcastle Chronicle reports that:

  Department for Transport staff were ordered to stop working on plans to dual the A1 in Northumberland back in 2021 – three years before it was approved by the Conservative Government, leaked documents have revealed. 

  And:

  …during the 2021 Spending Review the funding for the scheme was “withdrawn” and the plan was “deprioritised”. The report adds: “The funding decision was not made public, but we instructed National Highways to cease work on the scheme.”

  In another twist on this story, the Chronicle notes that the scheme was included in the Network North announcement following the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2.

  This goes some way to explaining something that baffled me at the time. In October 2023 I reported that:

  …the A1 scheme is described in the current RIS programme as a ‘committed’ scheme. As part of the process of seeking a development consent order (DCO), National Highways submitted a document to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) asserting that the scheme was funded.

  However, as Highways has reported, the scheme has been held up by repeated delays from ministers. So far there remains an unpublished recommendation from PINS.

  In its annual assessment of National Highways 2022-23, the Office of Rail and Road noted that the scheme should have started work during that year but was delayed by ministers’ postponement of the DCO decision.

  (more…)

  2025.07.16

• 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…)

  2025.07.08

• ORR doing everything it reasonably can to spin for National Highways

  I have been trying to find out what National Highways did to improve safety on its network during 2024-25, with some success and some obstructiveness from its regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), which continues to cover for it.

  First the bad news, after the ORR reported in March that National Highways had only implemented 5 of a total of 24 promised road safety schemes in an enhanced safety plan by the end of February, and 22 actions in total out of a promised 43, I asked it what the position was at the end of March.

  

  (Quick recap of the context: in 2023 the ORR required National Highways to “transparently” produce a robust plan with additional safety improvements to be implemented in 24-25 – the last year of the Roads Period (RP2) – to improve its shocking safety record. It then colluded with the company that it claims to hold to account, keeping the “enhanced plan” a secret.)

  I had to cite the Freedom of Information Act to get a response and it again came back with the exemption under Section 22 “Information intended for Future Publication” as “We plan to publish our view of National Highways’ performance against its enhanced safety plan in our upcoming safety assessment in Summer 2025”.

  The damage from what the ORR claims is “early disclosure of information that is currently being prepared for publication” is that this “would be misleading and lead to possible misinterpretation”.

  Bear in mind that I am basically asking for three numbers, not the ORR’s opinion of / spin on National Highways performance.

  But the ORR, which has twice previously asserted that National Highways was doing “everything it reasonably can in the final year of RP2” to cut casualties, presumably doesn’t want the raw numbers to speak for themselves.

  There is though another possibility, which I will return to in another post: it appears that the ORR has got itself confused about what “additional” actions National Highways had promised to carry out under the “enhanced plan” and is having a bit of a recount.

  Picture credit: Essex County Fire and Rescue Service

  2025.06.23